book IV) pesherim
or the ethics of mysticism: introduction to the method,
historical introduction, the gospel of Salome, the gospel of
Judas, the gospel of Pilate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

insanity clause #23:
Please do not share with others the web addresses for direct download from my site that are for
sale there. However, once you have a copy of any one of my works, you are allowed, byJonathan
Gee, the author of said work, to copy it and distribute it freely. If you claim you wrote it, or that
you came up with the ideas for it yourself, you should be challenged to determine if you can prove
your claim with knowledge of the material superior to my own. If you can, I will concede the work
to your credit, but if you cannot, then the work will remain both of ours to teach and give to whom
we choose.

:: Book I ::
the Formal System
of Metaphysics
(some selected excerpts)

the Formal System
The formal system of metaphysics shold not be confused with the traditionally accepted
definition of this term. The genealogy of the word metaphysics traces its roots back to Greek
words meaning beyond the phenomenal, sensational or logical realm of experience, deduction or
insight. The primary difference from this standardized meaning of the methodology of the system
described here is applicability to specified details of inquiry, yielding verifiable results. What
metaphysics means in the broadest sense is the quest for meaning, as opposed to the hierarchical
procedure offered by this substructure. We may expect, using this method of metaphysics, to
yield results to questions even of a deeply philosophical nature through a series of logically
navigable equivalencies, but there will always be just a little more that remains to be revealed.
Such is the nature of metaphysics.

Memory Castles
With this important distinction dealt with let us focus on what this system is. To do this it is
perhaps best to speak initially of memory castles. The use of memory castles for information
storage and retrieval is an ancient practice, of little value in the world of today, but when people
were more nomadic, and there were less posessions to serve as referentials, it was a far more
common technique of mystics. The memory castle itself is merely a large, projected space before
and around a person, where they concentrate their consciousness. Different points within this
space, like the different rooms, hallways and libraries of a castle, are then imagined to access
different sorts of data. This is much the way a modern computer works, and is really little more if
anything than a realization of the mental macrocsom.
Now, once one has imagined for themselves a memory castle, a system of metaphysics is a natural
next step. Imagine that the entire apparatus compresses into a compact form. First compress it to
the size of a doorway, then to a window, then to a fruit or a sports ball, and finally, if you like, to
the size of one of your own eyes â&#x20AC;&#x201D; floating just above the center of your forehead. Each of these
sizes has a myriad of applications in the realm of information storage within the universal
unconscious, but for our concern we will be dealing with the model at the size of a fruit or a
sports ball. Briefly, I will go into the applications of this size in more detail, but at this time an
explanation of the substance of the memory castle or metaphysics model is best.
Use of memory castles and most other forms of mysticism and metaphysics is the domain of a
select proportion of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population, and even by them is treated with such regard that it
is rarely made a public spectacle. Most of what we now know of mysticism and metaphysics has
been passed down amidst and between these peoples, predominantly from originally an oral folk
heritage. Many similarities mark their descriptions of the substance of externally projected
consciousness, which is often called no-mind, nothingness or the void, the abyss, ether, trance,
light, the all, the higher self, and by any number of environmentally all-encompassing
anthropomorphications for things that go bump in the night. All agree upon an essentially
holographic tabula rasa that is subsequently muted or illuminated and fractalized by the act of
perception. It is also believed by most that this state preceedes being, and that the process of
spiritual seeing is equivalent on another dimensional level to that of physical becoming. More
recent metaphysicians have forwarded this realm as a tyling board for their own temple building,
and see all externalizations as necessary in function. Others share the belief that manifestation
is natural, but seek to find commonalities of character or form to unify the universe. Ancient and
modern mystics alike caution the aspirant regarding this sacred space, however. It is best to
remember that when you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.

the Changing Mind
Based on these assertions of the substanceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s potency we may now enter into consideration of the
model itself. To do this, quickly construct a minimal memory castle, consisting of a single room of

right angle walls connecting parellel ceiling and floor, such that the area of each wall is equal to
the area of the ceiling, and that the area of the ceiling is also equal to the area of the floor. This
should be a perfectly cubical room, with no elaboration as of yet.
Next, step backwards out of this room. This is merely a technique to demonstrate a fact which
should become obvious at this time, that one may be aware of the existence of the wall behind one
and the corners of the ceiling and floor that define it, but one cannot see all six sides of a cubic
room if they are inside. Technically it is impossible to â&#x20AC;&#x153;step outside ofâ&#x20AC;? your memory castle,
since you are not in any way leaving behind any portion of your memory by doing so.
What is really being accomplished by this excercise is the creation of the memory castle in a
higher dimensional level, transforming the cube into a hypercube. What seems to be the further
distant wall of the cube is really also the external side of a second cube, and if you were to walk
to one side or the other around what you believed to be the simple cubic room in which you were
standing, you will find that the shape of the closer wall expands to become its own cube, the shape
of the further wall collapses into its own cube, until finally, as you pass around the wall that
joins them, that was originally the wall directly facing you in your castle, the larger cube will
begin to be compressed and the smaller cube will begin to grow. By the time you have travelled
around so that you are facing in the opposite direction you were to start with, as if you had
stepped forward from your memory cube and turned around, it will be the closer wall that is
large, and the more distant wall which is small, but of course, by now, you will understand that
these are not really walls, but cubes. Another way of looking at this would be to imagine that the
cube casts a shadow opposite you that is itself also a cube. As you pass by the corners of the
closer cube, the two cubes will seem to join into a rectangle, and as you look at the the further
cube through one of the walls of the closer cube it will seem to be contained within it. This is how
the storage of memory occurs in the mind, and the way in which detailed past experiences are
easily accessed from single perceptions. A further expansion of the hypercube into a hyper cross
is possible by shrinking the cube down to the size of a fruit or a sports ball and rotating it about
in your hand so that you see every wall casts its own cube, and that the central cube, which was
the foundation of your memory castle, is only the central cube within them.
It is this central cube which we shall continue to consider in its compact form, but remember, it
remains a fourth dimensional object, and each relationship that we can discover pertaining to its
surface is also a description of its storage potential in terms of depth. For example, think about a
sphere enclosed in the volume of the cube. This sphere represents your mind, as it occupies the
space where you stood when you were inside the cube in its form as a memory castle. Now imagine
that these two, the sphere and the cube, relate to one another gyroscopically. Turn the cube in
your hands and consider how the sphere shifts about before coming to settle again into its
original orientation. Different parts of the sphere are now in contact with the surface of the sides
of the cube. These places represent juncture points of idea. This is where information is
exchanged between the consciousness and the unconsciousness of your memory storage unit. As
this rotates around in any direction these points will change, but there will always be exactly six
points of contact, because your mind perfectly fills your central consciousness within the
memory storage unit, no matter what. When you change your mind, it is really the relationship of
these six points that is changing. You cannot change one point without changing the other five as
well at the same time.
Now two things can cause the mind to change. One is decision, and the other is symptom. In the
first case it is the sphere of your mind that moves first, and therefore effects motion in the cube
which it is touching. In the latter case it is the cube that moves first, due to some shange of one of
these points in the environment, and this causes the sphere of your mind to have to adjust slightly
to new coordinates.
To arrive at the system of metaphysics which is going to be described in this text it is necessary

to imagine a second cube inside the sphere. Six of the corners of the cube will align with the six
points where the surface of the sphere contacts the surface of the memory storage cube, and two of
the corners of the second cube will lie on the surface of the sphere where it arcs down beneath or
within two corners of the memory storage cube, such that they are opposite one another. To
construct this cube it is possible to imagine looking at the memory castle cube directly above one
of its faces so that the corners of the further wall of it touch the inside of the circle defined by
the center of the sphere. Another way is to imagine that you are once again standing inside the
cubicle memory castle, that the sphere of your mind is the area that you take up, and then
construct an image in your own mind of another cube, thus placing it inside the circumference of
your own consciousness. However you might want to go about doing it, the same effect will be
accomplished. A third way to get to the metaphysics model is to expand the sphere of your mind
until it touches the midpoints of all the cubes on the hypercross that can be extended out from
your central memory cube, until it is the corners of your original memory cube that touch the
surface of the sphere from inside. All of these techniques, although seemingly different, will
yield the same results.
This is because of the nature of the hypercube. Remember when you went walking around it the
first time, and saw how it seemed to expand and collapse; but at one point, when you were
standing even with the center wall that joined the two cubes, they would have appeared to be the
same size, and you would have been looking at a rectangle. If you were to step back into the cube
at this point you would find that it would immediately snap back down into a cube around you,
and you would be back at the center of your original memory castle, although probably having no
idea which way you were facing. This point is called the antipode. The existence of a point such as
this in fourth dimensional space means that two objects, which from one angel appear seperate (or
adjascent), will appear from another angle appear to be exactly overlapped (or singular), and in
all cases have exaclty the same area. The fact that you can construct the metaphysics cube within
the memory cube means that they have the same area, and that the surface of the sphere acts as
their antipode. In the walking around your memory castle excercise, if you were to turn and walk
away from the memory castle in a perfectly straight line instead of walking around it, it would
appear the same, but decrease in size as you increased your distance from it. There would be no
anipode. This would certainly not mean that you had lost your mind, though! It would demonstrate
the difference in the right angle construction of the memory castle and metaphysics cube as
opposed to the sperical nature of your mind. Without the mind to establish their relationship the
two cubes would only be two, plain, three dimensional cubes, but in the presence of your mind,
they become strongly relative in the fourth dimension.
In short, for the purposes of our disposition the memory castle cube you created first and the
metaphysics cube which we shall consider in greater detail will be synonimous, but the real
interaction of them will be left for your mind to sort out, just as in our model.

Parts
There are a total of ten individual nodes that we will examine here, in conjunction with how they
are situated in position to one another. Six of them are coplanar with the memory cube, and these
six plus two more are co-circumferencial to the sphere of the mind. The final two are internal to
the model, and determine its relationship with the sphere of the mind and the memory cube by
acting much the way the balance central to a gyroscope acts to steady it while it spins.
First let us look at the six coplanar nodes, which I will refer to as the six fundamentals. In their
purely ideal form they were discerned by the ancient Greeks and incorporated into the earliest
systems of logic and reasoning that were applied in daily life and philosophy since the Golden
Age. We know them as the fundamentals of higher reasoning, but they are subtly more significant
than this. It is demonstratable that apes and other forms of animal life can utilize the projective
consciousness technique in establishing relationships with objects and other beings that they

then depend on by memory to come to necessary conclusions about their environment. As such the
most basic component of metaphysics is grounded deeply in the survival instinct. But the
identification of these six fundamentals represents a considerable leap forward in the application
of this force as an organizing order. It is difficult to say exactly how this was accomplished, but
it is known that it was done so at a time in the history of the world similar to the Rennaisance,
when the study of the natural sciences was practiced freely and there was an open air for the
dissemination of new ideas. Studies in logic corresponded to studies in geomtery and astronomy,
the development of materialistic cosmologies and idealogies. It is best to put our six fundamentals
in this context to show that, although their moment of conception remains mysterious, their
reflection in varying fields is unquestionable.
The six fundamentals of reasoning, and the first six nodes of our metaphysics model, are How,
When, Where, What, Who and Why. These are questions that are ingrained in human thought to
such an extent that for millennia they have served as the foundation for all logical reasoning, and
remain so today, without fail, and without a jot of change or addition to them. They have, however,
been inculcated into no particular hierarchy, as is the case with much of the rest of the arcana
and esoterica that was developed during the Greek golden age. This is because they can survive
autonomously from all other patterns of organization, proving to be a key that unlocks them all,
rather than a part that operates within each devoid of others. Much of geometry and astronomy was
forced into an underground condition during the European dark ages, when the practitioners of
these schools were divided by their faith. But throughout, these six fundamentals of reasoning
were applied to all areas of thought and exploration, proving to be just as fundamental to the
study of scripture as to that of space or the stars. In a way, they may have suffered as a result of
this, since both astronomy and geometry emerged from their submersion in the occult
strengthened and renewed, but there was absolutely no change to the six fundamentals. They are
taken so much for granted, in fact, that their importance has been all but forgotten.
To study them formally it is convenient to construct a model upon which they may be arranged. To
do this take the cube that you have assembled in your mind and turn it so that you are looking at
it from above one of its eight corners. It should now appear, if you were to draw a two dimensional
representation of it, as a hexagon, with six points each of equal distance from its two nearest
neighbors. Now start at the top point and, moving clockwise around the object, assign the six
fundamentals to the six points. The uppermost will be how, the upper right will be when, the
lower right will be where, the bottom point will be what, the lower left will be who, the upper left
will be why, bringing us back to where we started.

HOW
/
\

/
WHY
|
|
WHO
\
\

\
WHEN
|
|
WHERE
/
/
WHAT

This assignation is not casual. It is the result of recognition of the relationships between these
points that will be subsequently discussed. It is possible to arrange 46,656 different models
using the six fundamentals and the hexagon, but the relationships described by them will only
test accurate in special cases where external factors must be set or attuned so that the results
adhere to prediction. The arrangement described above is intended to yield results, all other
things being equal, such that, regardless of the environment, the answers to the questions can be
discerned from consideration of the questions alone. This is a unique model.

Now consider the corner of the cube above which you have placed your eye. It remains unassigned,
as does the corner opposite it, underneath your cube. These will be referred to as the points of
had and not respectively, although their assignation is arbitrary and only pertains to formal
conclusions to be reached in specific cases.
Lastly, in the very center of the cube, imagine another point. This point is the binary juncture of
fact and fiction, and again only pertains to the solution of specific cases. The nodes of had and not
and that of fact and fiction are not fundamental, and therefore will be excluded from discussion of
the fundamental relationships and discussed as seperate entities.
These are all the relevant parts of your metaphysics model. With this in hand you can answer any
question in the world. It is entirely a matter of determining simple relationships between the
questions. Allow me to demonstrate the simplest method of this.
Holding the metaphysics cube in your hand you can easily comprehend that the angle between any
one of the corners and its nearest neighbor along an edge is ninety degrees. But if you drop a
dimension, as I have already suggested is a helpful excersize, then you can see that the angle
described by each corner is one hundred and twenty degrees. This means that the metaphysics
cube is describing the full rotation of one circle twice, or the circumference in degrees of two full
circles. This is in keeping with what we have already discerned for the hypercube, since the
sphere of the mind functions fourth dimensionally as well (or there would be no continuity of
character from one moment to the next) and therefore is itself a hypershpere, depicted as a torus,
which is like a doughnut, or a sphere within a sphere, and posseses an antipode, just as does its
cubic equivalent.
This does not mean that you have two personalities, although this explanation would nicely
account for such psychological assertions as Freud’s superego and id, with the ego as the
antipode, and Jung’s anima and animus with equal volume. The explanation with which we will
concern ourselves here is far simpler, suggesting no new names for the same old psychological
behaviors, and its deduction more elegant mathematically. What we are dealing with is a sphere
inscribing the hexagon, and another inscribed by the hexagram defined within the hexagon. This
will open up a field of prediction hitherto unexplored in the study of mental process, which will
later go a long way to explaining the abillities of the unconsious.
A hexagram is two equilateral triangles conjoined such that one overlaps the other facing in
opposite directions so that they share the same center point. In three dimensions this translates
to the conjoining of two tetrahedrons to form a steloctahedron. Imagine a sphere surrounding the
metaphysics cube you are now holding in your hand such that its diameter is equal to the cube’s
diaganol. Now imagine a sphere inside that cube such that its diameter is equal to the length of
one side of the cube; it will touch each face of the cube in its center. This is the fourth
dimensional mind, derived dimensionally from the metaphysics model. It was there all along, but
by studying the most simple aspects of the points on the cube it becomes realized. In this way the
solutions to all humanity’s questions are hidden in plain view, so obvious that we tend to overlook
them.

Relationships
There are three different types of relationships between these six fundamental nodes. The first is
around the edges of the cube or the sides of the hexagon. This is the shortest relationship, and if
you imagine your metaphysics model as a unit cube, then the dimension of each of these will equal
one unit. The next is between the corners of the conjoined triangles of the hexagon or tetrahedrons
of the steloctahedron. This relationship is between diaganols, and the diaganols transecting the
faces of a unit cube are equal to the square root of two. The last relationship is between nodes on

opposite corners of the cube, and involves the diaganol of the cube itself. These relationships
connect each pont to every other in the metaphysics model.
In addition to these there are measurements that can be made for had and not, which are the
corners of the cube that conceal one another as one looks directly down at it from above them.
Each of these has a one unit measurement from the three points closest to it, a square root of two
measurement for those slightly further away, and a cubic diaganol measurement between them. As
I have said before, their attribution is arbitrary, and therefore I will not go into specifics about
which of them lies closer to which other corners. Suffice it to say that to whichever is assigned
the closer corner of the cube: when, what and why will be one unit off; and how, where and who
will be a square root of two measure away. For the further corner the inverse of these assignations
applies; and in both cases had and not will be a cubic diaganol apart.
Lastly there is the central node of fact and fiction. It is one half the cubic diaganol from all the
other positions. This means that it has one relationship for all of them, irregardless of the nature
of their inquiry.
I want these relationships to be as easy to use as possible, and therefore will dispense with the
pleasantries of disposition on their origins and nature. It is enough to accept that they exist, so
that we may see with usage how they work. I promise that, by following this method, we will soon
discover that they are as posessed of potential as they are elegant.

Questions and Answers
The six fundamentals of reasoning are simultaneously questions and answers. This is a quaint
axiom of logic, a conundrum that occurs as a one-step impossible feedback loop in many formal
systems, but it has a highly meaningful use here. The Platonic system of ration, one of the first
known to man outside legal practice, consisted of answering a question with a question. The point
here was to lead the interlocutor around a series of points to arrive at their initial inquiry from
the other side, thus proving to them that they had known the answer themsleves all along, and had
only been prevented from seeing it at first as a factor of their perspective. This practice has since
fallen out of favor among philospohers, whose subsequent endeavors have consisted of trying to
unlock ontology by semantics. It is easy to see how this system is not far removed from Plato’s
original idea, although it has been adhered to in letter rather than spirit. A more appropriate
interpretation of the method might be to combine the practice of logical syllogism with the art
form of geometry, and plot the points passed along the reasoning person’s journey on a map or
model of some sort. If these points were standardized, then, all entries into the realm of reasoning
would share a single, common reference system. And this is the model of metaphysics. In other
words, the answer to the question “what is the model of metaphysics?” lies in a simple
rearrangement of the terms of the request — “the model of metaphysics is: ‘what is the model of
metaphysics?’”
To the interlocutor in the majority of Plato’s tales the first time around this was a horrible pain
to sort out. At first glance it seems to be begging the question, and little more than a verbal
redundancy. This is one of the primary reasons why his avatar Socrates was known as the Gadfly
and eventually condemned to execution by poison. There appears little more irony in this ruling
than in Socrates’s own arguements, afterall, and perhaps that is why he accepted his fate with
such passivity. Socrates became a martyr for philosophy, and, like Isaac Newton, was eventually
proven to have contributed as much to history as to have perturbed the people of his own day. In
this way, subsequent, deepening comprehension of the Platonic technique of rhettoric justifies its
continued study, and eventually dawn comes to those who delve into this method of reasoning.
It will be instructional, for our purposes, to postulate that the effectiveness of the method stems
from its self-referentiality. That is, it is a closed circuit. Regardless of the path that is taken, if

the procedure is executed systemmatically, the solution will inevitably be deduced. This applies
to all questions and questions of all nature. One will translate one answer per rotation, and
eventually solve them all.
Starting from a question at any point on the model, you may follow through the rest of the
questions, assembling data at each point, until the first answer is obvious. If you continue in this
fashion, even if you follow a different path through the hierarchy, you will compile satisfactory
conclusions for all of the involved realms. When these are observed in conjunction with one
another, the solutions will distill further and further, until they apply to the principal of
Ockham’s razor — that the simplest conclusion will most probably prove true. Thus, the more
rotations undergone, the more questions will begin to turn up answers, until you have them all. If
this had only taken so little time during the days of Socrates, perhaps his peers would not have
adjudicated his teachings terminally tedious. But alas it has remained to this day for there to
have accumulated sufficient experiences in the memory cube for us to have developed rapid
processing techniques such as the metaphysics model under consideration here represents.
In the metaphysics model itself there are two means to achieve completion. They are determined
by fact and fiction. The first is derivation, and is a practical inquiry towards extrapolating
infromation from the memory hypercube, integrating it into the metaphysics system, and yielding
results. The second is the aim of this type of searching. Each of these will be slightly adjusted for
the balancing of fact and fiction, which occurs naturally as the system undergoes its rotational
functioning.
For the case of derivation what we are examining is the path taken through the system, equivalent
to the data stream in a computer terminal, which includes certain subroutines and naturally
excludes, to preserve the expulsion of energy by, all others. Since we may follow any systematic
path between the nodes, having established the distance relationships between all of them, then
each path taken between two, and the order in which it occurs, lends additional determinance to
both the working out of the computation, and to the eventual set of answers. Although one need
never necessarily pass through the central point of the system in determining the solution to a
particular problem, it always serves to impact on the conclusion all the equations reach. Thus,
any particular path may be taken, and yet the same path may have a very different value, in fact
often the exact opposite, for fact and for fiction. In many cases the two will overlap slightly, and
in very rare cases share the same space completely. Derivation as an action is usually considered
a more factually oriented function of the system than is aim, for the simple fact that the
procedure of derivation is predominantly not predetermined, making it very difficult to fake.
Aim is the very last relationship possible, and pertains to the external motion of the system
overall. If you imagine the system as a planet within the gravity of your consciousness, then
derivation is equal to rotation, and aim is equivalent to orbit. After derivation is completed, and
the data stream passes through the final link at the system’s center, then aim becomes the
relevant issue. To what event are these answers going to be applied? It is possible to have no aim,
only to pass some time, in which case the model before you sits still and slowly spins. If there is
an aim, then the system will have two indicative behaviors before ultimate case termination and
automatic memory hypercube solution storage. First, before it has reached its final link, you will
notice the system begin to speed up in finding solutions. This is the result both of narrowing
down the margins of inquest, and of being pulled in the direction of the intended aim. Second,
when the final link is achieved, a strong amount of energy will have built up in the metaphysics
cube, and it will break towards its aim very suddenly and with an enormous release of power. The
former function of aim is the result of a pi spiral, and the latter of a phi spiral, although both
constitute the action of symmetry breaking.
This is why it has been important to picture the metaphysics model at the size of a fruit or a
sports ball — because it can be either consumed or projected. In the case of fiction, the answers

are consumed into a larger plotline, probably involving a complex set of other, related eqautions.
In the event of fact, the metaphysics model can be the determining factor in any dispute. Whoever
reaches a more logical conclusion first has the upper hand in debate. This was recognized very
well in the era of Socrates, and again, this time in the from of politics, was one of the possible
interpretations of his philosophy that would come back to haunt him. Do not forget that the
metaphysics model is a structure of projective consciousness comprised of mental energy, and as
such there is no limit to its potential for power.
Similar direction of biophysical energy fields are reffered to in the martial arts schools of the
Orient, particularly Kundalini in India, Tai Chi in China, and Akido in Japan. According to these
traditions the conscious directing of mental energy force can serve to massively illuminate an
aspirant of mysticism, support the girding of the physique so that it is in harmony with the
ambient energy of the environment, or devastate an opponent in the intellectual realm of combat.
Having considered this point it is no longer necessary to confine your comprehensive imaging to
the size of a fruit or a sports ball. The relationships we are about to describe hold true for the
metaphysics model projected at any size.

The Fluctuating Field:: Introduction
Compared to the sphere of the mind itself, which passes through each of them sequentially as
possibility, and maintains dominion in all as potential, the dimensions themselves are relatively
stable. Relationships are constantly forming, flowing and evaporating between them and within
them, but always along fixed, geometrical patterns. In this way redundancy balances entropy, and
the formal system operates the gammut of its functions remaining stable throughout. But the
sphere of the mind is quite different. To understand it we must examine it dimensionally, and
then, once we have grapsed a full understanding of its shell, probe the depths of it to comprehend
its motions.
Clear the formal system from your mind, and imagine a simple circle. But you already know that,
even in the stillness of the space surrounding that circle, the after-image of the formal system
lingers. This is, and cannot be otherwise, so to resist it would be to no avail. Instead accept it, and
observe its effect on the circle at the center of your attention. The circle now displays
incomprehesible patterns, reflected from the formal system. They pass around it like clouds
before the sun. The patterns are greater in number around the edges of the circle, and larger in
the center.
Make the circle into a sphere, and the patterns will become clear, ordered. You see that the
patterns are the outlines of shapes, and that these shapes are regular in size, and that they appear
different only because they completely surround the sphere. When you look at the shape upon the
surface of the sphere at the point closest to you it is directly alinged with your vision, but as you
look away from the center towards the rim of the sphere, the alignments of reflection appear more
angled, allowing you to see that a great number of patterns surround the sphere, although their
memory is already fading, and all that remains is the shapes on the sphere. These shapes are your
thoughts. The one that is closest to you is the one occupying your focused, concentrated
consciousness. Adjacent to this are thoughts which pertain to it, are related. Around the very
edge of the sphere are the myriad thoughts of your unconscious, ever present, only waiting for the
sphere to turn that they may be brought, in turn, to your attention. But we know that each thought
is the same size, and that they are, like the points on a sphere, potentially infinite.
Now focus intently upon the sphere, making the thought which is at the center of the sphere as
clear as possible. You will see that, the more you focus on the sphere, the more the thought that
occupies your consciousness will resemble the sphere, until, after forgetting all the other
thoughts on the surface of the sphere, you will see that it is an identical sphere, within the
sphere of your mind. It reflects on its surface images of all the thoughts that were on the surface
of the sphere of your mind, but, by focusing on only one thought and one alone, you have cast them
out of your mind, and now they exist only as parts of that thought; as afterthought. I will return to
this more in a moment.
You should at this time recognize that you have created a hypersphere, and are now free to impose
the working of the antipode upon it. Imagine that you are walking around the sphere of your mind,
or that you are turning it about with an invisible hand, all the while keeping perfectly focused on
the thought closest to you. You will see that the thought upon which you are focusing will grow
larger, until it surpasses the size of your mental sphere, and then your mental sphere will begin
to shrink down until it is the size your thought was after one half rotation. If you wish to you can
keep doing this until you become comfortable with their interchangeability.
There is another way to look at the two spheres as well. Imagine flying up above them, or holding
them under your eye, and you will see them assume a new form. The larger sphere will cave in on
itself, until the thought at the center of the smaller sphere has become its own sphere, and the
large sphere appears only to be a round ring with reflections outside of and inside it. Now we are
looking at your mind as a torus. It reflects thoughts that are external to it, and it reflects the

thoughts which are reflected on the thought at the center of your consciousness.
Finally picture this: the thought at the center of your consciousness is the circle that you first
imagined. It is upon the surface of the sphere of the mind. The torus that surrounds this can be
cross-sectioned to form a sphere. There is another sphere outside the torus, and it constitutes the
realm of your perception, or your mental imaging space. So lastly, where are “you?”
This is the process undergone by the mind as the formal system of metaphysics unfolds itself.
This is why the sphere of the mind cannot be said to be bound by a single dimension, as can its
cube based counterpart, the formal system, because even before it begins it is already all the
dimensions in one. We cannot argue which came first when we are focusing on the thought of the
formal system itself, because this is a paradox. By applying the formal system we could deduce an
answer, but this answer might not satisfy us. It is that “some suggestions come to us from the
future, while other suggestions come to us from the past.” These two, like “reality” and
“imagination,” are really one. To understand this of fact and fiction is to understand the entirity
of geomtery.
It is fact and fiction which motivate the entire formal system, as well as the sphere of the mind.
All the relationships that we have studied thus far, between the nodes of the formal system,
between the relationships between these nodes, between the formal system and event, between
conscious memory and the formal system, between unconscious and conscious memory, and within
the nodes themselves arise from and conclude at the node of fact and fiction.
Fact and fiction cause the metaphysics model, including the aspect of the memory castle, to
fluctuate as does the sphere of the mind. This occurs as fact and fiction interact with both the
naturally fluctuating sphere of the mind and the naturally stationary or inert formal system of
metaphysics, as the central point of all involved. So it is really the sphere of the mind that
initiates the fluctuation of the formal system of metaphysics, through the node of fact and fiction.
What is implied here is that the node of fact and fiction is a microcosm of the process of
dimensional fluctuation and that the motivation of the sphere of the mind and the formal system
of metaphysics arises out of its intra-action. Thus, each is older than the other, and both age
simultaneously at the same rate.
This motivating field and the sphere of the mind are one, when the sphere of someone’s mind is
present, for the waveform of probability that we are describing here has been proven to collapse
only under observation, although one supposes as well that it is present even when no mind is
around. The infinite thoughts which can occur on the sphere of the mind are thus comprised of the
closed sets of information which are translated between experiential possibility and mental
recollection through the formal system, and can therefore be measured. Because the wave of
probability is objective, or non-right angled, we can determine fixed location for it more easily.
To do this we may make use of the hitherto mysterious diaganols, irrationals, and attractive poles.
Let us study a specific function of the formal system, and see how these components contribute.

The Fluctuating Field:: Application
One of the necessary tasks of the formal system is to transmit the answer to a question provided
by the creation of a real or hypothetical event into the vast associative storage space provided in
the memory castle. We have already observed that the exact moment of the answer’s creation is
determined by both the carrying outward in the fluctuating field of a wave of superfluous data
from the node of Not, followed by the returning of that tide through the filter of the node of Had.
So we will pick up there and follow the answer as it is transported from the now dissolving event
outward into the also collapsing dimensions of the memory castle.
Now we may deal with the node of fact and fiction as a microcosm for dimensional fluctuation. It,

in itself, bridges the gap between the sphere of the mind and the hypercubic formal system of
metaphysics memory castle. No other node does this; fact and fiction alone holds responsibility
for this position. As we shall see shortly, there is a strong binary aspect involved in the final
stages of functioning of the formal system, particularly in the interaction of the nodes of Had and
Not, but in field form through fact and fiction as well. It can be said that these nodes are practical
and philosophical equivalents. They determine what is real.
Had and Not accomplish this determination for the event, but as informal components of the
formal system they are ultimately refernetial to the transmutation of information. Fact and
fiction pertain not only to the event, but to all the other structures reflexive in event. That is, by
examining Had and Not, what is true for an event may be strictly determined; only by examining
fact and fiction, though, can proof be provided even for the existence of all the very structures
involved in that determination. This is from where reasoning derives, and is the significance of
the centralization of the double-node. It can be said that the ultimate definition of an event’s
reality isn’t what’s true of its composition, but what is true for its composition — the context of
reason in which event occurs, that is, fact or fiction.
To fully study the function of fact and fiction, and to understand its inherent dimensional
fluctuation, it is relevant to consider its function in each of its dimensional levels, or each of the
parts of the fully functioning formal system of metaphysics model. We shall go through these
expanding outward from the node, just as we have with the sphere of the mind’s expansion from its
lowest dimensional level. Following this, and in conclusion to this section, we shall see the final
dimensional level to be included in the aspects of the sphere of the mind. As we do this,
remember, this can be done with any of the other nodes as well.
The first of these levels, that we have already touched on briefly, is the dimension of event. Event,
in terms of physical legislation, has defintion as a singularity of space and time, that is to say, it
is internally unique unto itself and relative to others like it by categorizing of external
similarities. With some certainty we can assert that event has existed as long as time, as the
lowest common denominator of physical interval, but it will be added shortly that this does not
mean it is indeed the lowest level of measurement possible from a dimensional perspective.
Fact and Fiction pertain to event in aim, assembling its unique composition and its relativity
according to binary terms equivalent to Had and Not, but with open, inclusive, rather than closed,
exclusive sets. If the event is fact it will have greater bearing on the practical, physical aspect of
reality. If it is fiction it will have a more direct impact on the philosophical, ideal aspect of
reality. Both of these realms being equal, as we have seen in the legislative branches of the formal
system, we may see that an event will represent the transformation of a fixed amount of energy
towards either realm of possibility. It is also common for an event to function as a translation
between these realms, with input in one realm and output in the other. These translations can be
roughly rendered as distraction and inspiration, and we shall return shortly to the exact
application of these terms.
This level of attribution is equivalent to the application of the measure of the line connecing the
uppermost and middle nodes on the hexagonal shadow of a cube as one to the full component
measure of the dimensional potential. This is accurate according to the measure of a compass
tracing down from the distance between two of the formal nodes external on the hexagon, with one
of the nodes as an origin, to connect the other external point to the center of the hexagon. The
reason for doing this is simple: this is the measure of event: 1 = 1, a simple equation in a simple
plot.
The second form of which fact and fiction are the center is the formal system of metaphysics
itself. When it is said that the effect of an event occurs, it is meant that there is an outward
dimensional expansion in the form of a change to the situation embodied by the metaphysics

model in the exact information structures of its constituent relationships carried by the
fluctuation of the sphere of the mind in the form of raw potential. When this occurs it marks,
temporally, the end of one event and the beginning of its transformation through translation of
potential, from a closed to an open to a closed set of possibilities, into another event. This is the
origin of the concept of event as the simplest measure of temporal interval. But the change in the
information patterns in the formal system of metaphysics implies an even smaller measure,
pertaining to potential rather than the exclusively physical. We shall revisit this again shortly.
The transformation of information in the formal system of metaphysics that is initiated by and
determinate of event pertains to fact and fiction once again in aim.
What we are seeing now is an outward wave of potential emmanating from event. If this is
fluctuating at the same frequency as the full spectrum of the physical cosmos, or fact, it will
double back upon itself with half intensity to generate a new event. The remaining half energy of
the potential wave will continue onward to the memory castle, where it will be stored. This is
evidenced by the very fact of cause and effect itself: not only does one event beget another, but it
is remembered as well, accessable when the sphere of the mind is present.
If the sphere of the mind is absent, the wave of potential doubles back with full capacity upon
event. For fiction, the wave of potential passes through the metaphysics model, and will only turn
back once it has reached the memory castle. This is because of the philosophical nature of fiction,
and is evidenced by the necessity of it being passed through the sphere of the mind before
redirecting its potential for generating another event. As we shall see shortly, the sphere of the
mind, though present at every level, is the medium for movement of potential in the form of an
outward ripple of information only when it cannot be otherwise.
The second level of attribution to geometric function is that of the formal system of metaphysics
to the measure of the same line as before, that following from an arc connecting the center node to
one of two consecutive external nodes on the hexagonal representation of the formal system, the
other point being the origin, only this time measured as the diaganol of a unit square, which
totals the square root of two. The reason for this is that, not only is the formal system the second
consecutive representation following the first dimensional level as represented by the measure of
the leg as one, but it is expressed as a hypercube nesting event, and therefore expressable as a
square root, or the diaganol of a cube nested within a cube.
Now we proceed along our wave of effect to the lower form of memory, that of conscious memory.
Here we begin to see more interesting results. As the memory castle expands through the
functioning of the formal system of metaphysics, it becomes a hypercubic hypercross, with six
new formal system structures surrounding a central seventh. This means that the node of fact and
fiction is also multiplied, and therefore what is seen at this stage is fact and fiction coming into
contact with themselves.
The intellectual action described here is as complex as it may sound. This is one of the most
immense implications of the node of fact and ficiton because, as it will soon be explained, this
process is itself inherent to the individual node. To see every implication in its most basic, or at
least initial, form, we must examine each hypercube of the hypercross of conscious memory, of
which there are the long term and short term cubes for each of the three legislative branches â&#x20AC;&#x201D;
physical, ethical, and religious â&#x20AC;&#x201D; and the central cube, with its triple nesting of memory cube,
formal system and event, from which the potential wave emmanates.
There are a total of twenty-four outcomes from the interaction of the central node with its
satellites, including fact to fact, fiction to fiction, fact to fiction and fiction to fact, multiplied by
the number of orbital formal systems. Each of these occurs within one of the short or long term
legislative branch memory storage cubes, and it is not necessary that any of them relate with each

other during this process. After each has been determined autonomously, some of the potential
will be reflected back down towards the metaphysics model, to impact upon event if the sphere of
the mind is present, and the remainder of the wave continues out toward the realm of unconscious
memory. Though this is true for both fact and fiction, these terms have both become relative after
this point by interaction with themselves.
Conscious memory can be measured by the third geometrical mystery, that of the rendering for
the cut defined as equivalent on a compass to that connecting one external point on a hexagon to
the next one, and joining one of these external nodes to the middle, and called half the diaganol of
the unit cube, which is measured as one half the square root of three, or the square root of 1.5.
The significance of this is that this is only half of all of consciousness, which includes the other
half of subconsciousness and the entirity of unconsiousness as well. At the same time, this is the
measure of the radius of the structure as it occurs for the first time in geometrical form in three
dimensions, indicating that the sphere of the mindâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s radius is equivalent to half of the sum of its
reflectied thoughts, or half of infinity. We shall consider this again later.
Finally we come to the hypercubic hypercross of the unconscious memory, a hypercross of seven
hypercubes, six on all sides of the central seventh, wherein each of the hypercubes is itself a
hypercross of conscious memory, so that there are seven of these, six arranged around a central
seventh, and each of these is composed of seven hypercubes of the formal system, six arranged
around a central seventh, and in the center of the formal system in the center counscious memory
hypercross in the center cube of the unconscious memory hypercross is the event, from which the
wave of potential emmanates. We can see already the parallels to the thoughts on the sphere of the
mind as a reflection of these reflections.
There exist in uncounsious memory six shadow events generated by the replication of conscious
memory, and these represent simultaneously different potential perspectives on the initial event,
or potential memories, when the sphere of the mind is present, and possible events that are
accessed by effect, whether the sphere of the mind is present or absent.
Each of the events contained within the unconscious memory contains a node of fact and fiction,
and these are realized as archetypes. Each of the thirty-six formal systems surrounding these
also contains a node of fact and fiction, and these are realized as myth. These are both realized by
manifestation, which we will speak of shortly. Now the nodes of fact and fiction for the archetypes
and the nodes of fact and fiction for the myths interact to determine internal from external, and
this is how aim is set. An archetype can be fact or fiction, and a myth can be fact or fiction.
Because the myths themselves are comprised of multiple fact and fiction nodes it is even possible
for them to be both fact and fiction equally, and because the six archetypes interact with one
another to influence the overall probability of an outcome realizing itself as consecutive event, it
is possible for these to be balanced equally between fact and fiction also. Here the determining
node is that which was central all along, and is always irregardless of the presence of the sphere
of the mind. So when the wave of potential reaches this point, because at this point it contacts the
sphere of the mind, it turns around on itself. It can be either fact or fiction according to the total
tally of fact and fiction nodes along the way.
There is admittedly no known equivalent to the castle of unconscious memory, but there is the
mystery of attrative opposite nodes. This pertains to the basic cubic structure by piece-meal, but
it also changes over time, and therefore references the fourth dimension as well. Here we find not
a measure of spatial distance, but a measure of energy expendature duration. Thus, what we are
dealing with is a balancing between opposing sets of binary charges. What and How are both
positive; Where and When are both positive. Why and Who are both negative; Had and Not are both
negative. Fact and fiction are dually positive and negative. This evenly balances the positive and
negative charges.

The Fluctuating Field:: Conclusion
Though our model ends here, the fluctuation between dimensions does not. We have seen that event
serves loosely as the smallest certain interval by which to measure physical time, but that
potential implies one smaller; we have seen that the presence or the absence of the sphere of the
mind pertains to the redirection of the wave of potential after it has passed through the
autonomously functional formal system of metaphysics model; we have seen that event begets
event by manifestation. Let us deal with each of these three points in terms of the three branches
of legislation, assessing the first to the physical, next to the ethical, and last to the religious.
Thus we are looking at physical interval, measured in potential; ethical attendance of the mental
sphere; and religious manifestation.
First we find the case of physical interval. Event is a singularity. What can potential be then, but
a measure of dimension? We tend to think of potential in the binary terms of probability, zero
being null, one being certain. But potential can be expressed dimensionally: in terms of ascent
through a series of probabilities, each additional level expanding the limit of certainty. Thus,
potential is itself as good a measure of interval as event, but pertainant to a lower level of
dimension.
Now on to the ethical angle on the influence of the mental sphere. We can use the tree falling in
the woods metaphor, only substituting meaning for physical substance; otherwise, matter for
matter. We can say that it is all difficult logistically from here on out, but worth the journey.
â&#x20AC;&#x153;Work out your salvation with dilligence.â&#x20AC;?
Lastly, looking at the religious implications of manifestation, we can deal with the point I was
hoping to make with this essay all along: that isolations of disease outbreak and metaphysics
breakthrough can be correlated, perceived through the aspect of the sphere/cube,
physcial/spiritual dichotomy, and are utilizable through the fact and fiction node. Examples of
this include: free will over aethyr and the fever of mind over matter, astrological Cancer and
spiritual AIDS.
One interesting side-effect of manifestation is the breaking of concentration. When working for a
long time on any given project, it is occasional for the focus of a participant to waver, and
possibly confront the subject of the work smiling, as though it were for the first time, and yet like
some distant memory. This is to say: be careful what you wish for, it just might happen.

:: Book II ::
the Ethics
of Reason
(ongoing work in progress)

1) Arguments against Nicomachean Ethics
A) Arguments in favour of the subjective nature of
emotions.
B) Arguments against the equality of "good" and
"happiness."
C) Arguments against reasoning that excludes emotional
motives.
D) Arguments against moral judgments based on emotional
motives.
E) Arguments in favour of emotionally motive reasoning
with no final moral judgment.
2) the True Gnosis of Good and Evil
A) introduction
B) How do we know Good from Evil?
C) what is Good?
D) what is Evil?
E) How do we choose Good or Evil?
3) A re-aligned model of Individual Rights
4) Introduction
(from Magick: Ritual 101)
5) Illuminati Philosophy 101A-D
(from Illuminati 101)

Arguments against Nicomachean Ethics
Eudaimonia is a Greek concept from their "Golden Age" of philosophy. "Eu," meaning "good" or
"happy," and "daimon," cognate to the mental "genie" (or "djinn")ie. the "voice" of the "mind" or
"genius," are combined into this term, which is often translated simply "happiness," but is more
modernly denoted as "human (genus) flourishing (survival)." When Aristotle dedicated his book
on ethics to his son, Nicomachus, he included as the initial premise of this work the thesis that
"the best good is happiness," (EN, 1097b22), although he qualifies this by saying first that this
is a "common belief" and then goes on to examine it as a necessary axiom for successful social
politics, and thus stops far short of identifying "happiness" as an "ideal" or "Platonic form" of
good. Aristotle's reasoning appears to assume that "happiness" is necessary to successful social
politics, and then deduce from this it must be the "greatest good."
In these essays I seek to disprove Aristotle's assertion that "Eudaimonia" (sub. happiness) is the
"Summum Bonum" (sub. greatest good). Happiness may be a necessary good, but the greatest good
is not necessary, as is Happiness, and therefore the greatest good is not necessarily itself
happiness.
I will be looking at a series of topics in a certain order to prove that emotions (such as happiness)
are necessary to reasoning, however negate the possibility for making a final judgment on their
subjects. Thus, the highest relative good is necessarily relative to emotion, however as such,
cannot encompass the greatest or ideal good. Relative good reflects the greater good in our
emotions like the moon reflecting on the ocean. The bottom of the ocean and the surface of the
moon may appear similar, but they are by definition divided by a world of differences.
However it should also be noted that, if read in the reverse order, these same arguments may all
be used as a proof in favour of Aristotle's ethics, insofar as they demonstrate his assertion that,
in reality, no greater good than happiness can exist. By this reasoning, therefore, we are seeking
to reverse the traditional mythological morality that says the greatest good prior to the creation
of existence was only the motive for this act, that is, the personal happiness of God; and by this
reverse the reasoning that the greatest good of man is either his own personal happiness (ethics)
or else, moreso, the greatest possible good in reality is the idealism of making God happy
(morality).
By disproving the premise that selfish happiness is "good" it does not disprove the existence of
the self. Likewise, disproving the premise that selfless happiness is "good" does not disprove the
existence of God. These arguments do not seek such ends. Merely, I am seeking only to topple
Aristotle's assertion that "happiness is the greatest good." I see this assertion as having led only
to misery throughout all the intervening millennia of its application, and, as I will demonstrate
through deconstruction of the intervening applications, it is a false premise that has turned the
minds of men into slaves idealising freedom, rather than free men enjoying freedom for its own
sake. However, whether one agrees with this conclusion or not, I beg my audience only to be as
inconsdierate and conclusively indifferent to my own arguments as I will be toward any
assumption I could make about what may be your own. I am not attempting to persuade your point
of view, only to present mine as in opposition to that of Aristotle. You are, ultimately, free to
choose for yourself what you will believe.

Arguments in favour of the subjective nature of emotions.
There are two types of observations an individual can make about the world. They can objectively
observe (and actively subject) the external world around them, and they can objectively observe
(and actively subject) the internal world of themselves. To the extent of reasoning out the nature
of emotions, we may likewise make both these types of observations in order to demonstrate their
actively subjective nature. We can observe the emotions in the physiology of ourselves and others,
and we can observe the emotions in our own motive psychology, and assume it is shared by others.

Thus, let us look at the physiology of our emotions, and then at their apparent psychological
motives. In subsequent topics, we will also look at why such a division in the nature of emotions
as between the interior and exterior cannot rightly be made to an extent whereby it could prove
itself conclusively.

Physiological arguments.
Several physiological symptoms accompany the sensation of emotions. We can examine these
without speculating on their psychological causes. For example there are apparently the
emotional equivalent of optical illusions, where their expression confuses the senses such that we
cannot accurately perceieve their real intent. In this category we can lump such phenomenon as
the "waving or drowning" phenomenon, the "laughter to tears" phenomenon, the "smiling fear"
phenomenon, and the "authomatic yawning" phenomenon.
Consider first the illusion of action-at-a-distance, which cannot be ascertained beyond any
degree of "uncertainty." The factor of our own stupidity about nature is such a necessary axiom in
our mathematical conclusions we have had to account for it by the creation of a universal
"principle," something akin to an ammendment to the constitution that establishes all natural
laws. Because of "uncertainty" we perceive action-at-a-distance, but cannot ever prove our
assumptions about any case of it. We can, therefore, assert such phenomenon as "synchronicity,"
ESP, remote-viewing, clairvoyance and other such "psychic" (psi) phenomena, however we are
unable to translate these experiences into cohesively logical arguments proving by accurate redemonstration the facts of the events in retrospect. In other words, like the light in the
refrigerator, once we close the door we cannot know for sure whether the light goes off or stays on.
So, too, we can experience action-at-a-distance and rely on it as a natural phenomenon, but we
cannot prove it using logic or math, and therefore we doubt it or believe it regardless of the fact it
exists. Such is the effect of the "waving or drowning" phenomenon: from the shore, one can never
tell if their friend some distance out to sea is only waving or if they care drowning and trying to
signal for help. So it is with all action-at-a-distance: it can be miscalculated, mis-perceieved,
mis-understood, etc. Because of this, action-at-a-distance's partially psychological nature,
action-at-a-distance must be lumped in along with the rest of emotions as an "unseen" yet
experientially "real" motive.
Secondly, look at the phenomena of smiling and laughing, and see how they may be misunderstood. If you were to walk into a room and find two of your friends in a hysterical fit of
emotion, rending their clothes, crying and screaming, bent over or curled up on the floor, etc. four
precedent motive events could be possible. Either one is happy the other sad, one is sad the other
happy, both are happy or both are sad. The extremes of happiness and sadness effectively look the
same to an objective observer or one thrust suddenly into a scene in media res of unknown events.
I'll return to this momentarily under the heading of "arguments against the equality of 'good' and
'happiness'," when I discuss physical extremes of pleasure and pain, however for now we are
dealing only with the perception of motive emotion by physiological symptoms, and not
addressing any non-psychological causes as motives. As such, the phenomenon of not being able to
discern one extreme of emotions from its opposite by behavior is called "crying laughter,"
whereby someone may be crying because they have laughed so hard with joy, or crying because
they are in mourning with sorrow; this is a lesser extent of what I'll discuss later as the
confusion between extreme pain and pleasure as "sado-masochism."
As a side-note worth mentioning, the root cause of our confusion between the expressions of
happiness and sadness is due to the fact that we are the only animal that uses the specific
requisite facial muscles to contract the expression of a smile as an expression of pleasure. The
same expression is, in every other animal, a naturally instinctual reaction of fear. The snarling
animal in the wild is the closest in appearance to the tamed animal in captivity who has learned to
smile. Thus, the instinctual aspects of man, inherent in us from our animal nature, prevents our

being able to discern the extremes of happiness (the smile), and either wild fear (the snarl), or
tamed sadness (tears). Of course, this similarity in appearance does not mean that our experience
of the qualitative differences between the extreme emotions of fear, happiness and sadness are
due to their sharing a root motive or being merely a combination of one another like colour tones
into hues. This we call the "smiling fear" phenomenon.
Before going on to more purely psychological motives, ones we can relate with other people based
on our own past experiences, let's look at one final purely physiological phenomenon that can act
as an example of the subjective nature of our ability to perceive emotions in others. Often, when
we make some discovery that seems absolutely fascinating to us, when we share our excitement
with anyone else who has not been there for the "eureka" moment of discovery itself, their first
physiological reaction is to yawn. This, as they inevitaby explain, does not occur due to their disinterest. It is a purely physiological reaction which cannot be accounted for by psyhological
motive. We must, thus, include it along with these other examples of the subjective nature of our
perception of emotional and pychological motives in others. In short, we cannot be absolutely
certain that any apaprent display of emotional or psychological motive we perceive in another's
physiological symptomology is truly being caused by any motive we might assume.

Psychological arguments.
Now, let's look at some socially necessitated, and thus beneficial, confusions regarding the
interior emotions and psychological motives of ourselves and others. Just as we have looked at
physiological symptoms of emotion which can lead to confusing diagnoses, let's turn our attention
to psychological symptoms of society experienced by ourselves and others that can also result in
confusion. To this extent, let us look first at the social "good" of lying, then consider two
examples of syndromes resulting from this, and finally look at the concepts that have been
applied to these syndromes as cures by the moralities of traditional mythology.
As we have already seen, the emotional motive for the physiological symptom of smiling may be
either fear or happiness, while the extreme extent of the smile can result in tears, which are thus
a symptom of both happiness sadness. The social result of this physiological symptomology is that
we can make different faces than the emotions we experience internally. We can choose, by doing
so, to manipulate the perception by other people of our own interior emotional state. This
behaviour, though presented as odious to the moralities of traditional mythology, is likewise
rewarded by every society throughout history, and presented not only as beneficial, but as
requisite to social life as death and taxes. To this extent, modern psychologists have discovered
that the children who are most convincing when lying to other children will grow up to be the
adults who are the best at making snap command choices most beneficial to all. In short, "liars
make good leaders."
This assumption of social life has led, throughout history, and recorded by the traditional
mythologies, to two types of complex. The first is the "God complex," and the second the "Saviour
complex." The "God complex," currently diagnosed by the title "malignant narcissim" or
"sociopathy," is little more than a prolapsed version of the "Saviour complex." Thinking one's self
God usually follows from believing one's self a saviour. The saviour complex in itself can continue
indefinately as such, or it can inflame itself into the God complex. The God complex is harder to
overcome than the saviour complex, because it is more socially rewarded. To believe one's self the
saviour, one can always believe God to be the world outside them, and thus all other people as well
as only one's self alone may be seen as equal to God, who is then seen as the collective saviour of
all combined. However, to believe one's self God, one believes that God is their own interior
psychology, and that the opposite of this is exterior reality, and thus to believe "I am God"
ultimately leads to the conclusion "you are not." Such are the two syndromes most commonly
resulting from the realisation that liars are socially rewarded.

Now, let's look at the concept of the moral "grey-area" which allows the extreme of mythological
morality to say one thing while the perennielly paired societies do the opposite. Once one comes
to the conclusion that their interior psychological world can be not only different from, but
through mis-leading the perceptions of others, can actually control, the exterior world of other
people around us, one achieves a calm ecstasy; one perceives the hopeless futility of resisting
reality. This revelation is immediately followed by the on-set of the moral grey area that is the
root symptom of the previously adumbrated socially rewarded syndromes. This moal grey area is
simply guilt; its light tone is faith "well-founded" (in other words, proven accurate); its darkside is cynicism and unluckiness (in other words, justified doubt).
All-in-all, we cannot deny the subjective nature of emotions. We cannot accurately perceive the
emotional causes of others for their physiological symptoms, and thus we cannot perceive the
psychological motives for their chosen social syndromes. It is obviously apparent, and therefore
considered a perenniel axiom, that we cannot know the true contents of anyone else's mind. This
is considered qualitatively different from not being able to see our own bodily organs. However,
ultimately the effect is the same: we can take for granted they are functioning as meant to unless
they have become unrewardingly socially symptomatic or result in physically pain.

Arguments against the equality of "good" and "happiness."
Because we have established the subjective nature of emotion as a psychological motive, we can
now examine the different natures of "happiness" as an emotion and "good" as a moral judgment.
We'll look first at the most prevalent form of the difference between "happiness" and "goodness,"
ie. that one which is most rewarded socially, followed by its subsequent off-shoots, and conclude
by a comparison, by the standards of this socially rewarded form of confusion of "happiness" and
"goodness" itself, between its definitions of "good" and "happiness."
The primary syndrome resultant from Nicomachean ethics, the confusion of "good" with
"happiness," is sado-masochism. This perversion of the sexual instinct began at the same time
that wampum (money) was created as a token exchanged to represent value of trade. The
symptomology, and thus the degree of social-reward, for each is identical. In sado-masochism, the
reproductive instinct is confused, whereas with capitalism it is the survival instinct. In
capitalism, survival is seen as dependent on the catharsis of labour (ie. happiness in slavery). In
sado-masochism, reproduction is seen as dependent on the sublimation of sex (ie. alternative
methodologies to achieve the desired ends). For sado-masochism, these alternative methodologies
have each spawned a subsequent off-shoot from the original perversion. These off-shoots include
fetishism, sodomy and homo-sexuality. While sado-masochism is a form of "happiness" that can
be contrasted with the idea of "goodness," these subsequent off-shoots are all justifiably moral,
however are socially punished rather than rewarded.
Fetishism is the use of an alternative object to symbolise the reproductive organs which is then
used to satisfy the need to sublimate the sexual instinct. Although the earliest and most obvious
examples of this are the priapic statues of Pan, Greek goat-God of panic and ecstasy, the practise
is not only older (originally African use of goards sheath-extenders for the cod-piece), but also
more subtle (involving also the written word and non-pornographic arts).
Sodomy is the practise of using the body's alternative portals and passage-ways to satisfy the
sexual instinct. In the same way the argument for this as a "forbidden fruit" by those who espouse
the absolute "goodness" of the moral mythologies, the cotra-positive can be asserted that "God put
them here to be used." Sodomy in itself is obviously permissable to the eye of providence, and
occurs (as often as does fetishism and homo-sexuality) in the animals of the wild as much as
among social humans. Furthermore, attempts to tax this practise by punishment in the form of
fees fails to accomplish for the state what the practise of prostitution accomplishes for a pimp
because doing so lacks the assertion of it being an individual liberty. In truth, sodomy is as

natural as any right, and therefore as much a right as any liberty.
Homo-sexuality, seen by the moral mythology absolutists as following from the practise of
sodomy, is the desire for sublimation of the reproductive instinct into sexual satisfaction with
another person of the same gender. Attempts to legislate rights for practitioners of homosexuality will continue to fail only so long as there remains the division between the "morality"
of mythology-absolutists and the "relativity" of scientific method. The issue is seen, on the onehand, as a gender-rights issue: equal to women in the work-place. On the other-hand, the rights of
homo-sexuals is forwarded as a "sanctity of marriage" issue: calling into question the validity of
church ritual as overseen by the populist state.
According to sado-masochism's application of Nicomachean ethics, that which is "good" for the
self (brings selfish happiness) can be (or, by social reward, is necessarily for survival) relative
to that which is "bad" for others (brings them pain). In short, what makes one person happy may
make another person sad, and what makes another person happy may be doing what would make
someone else sad. Thus, the ultimate extent of this, the "good" and "evil" or "right" and "wrong"
of sado-masochistic and capitalist application of Nicomachean ethics, is a scale between rape
(making the rapist happy and their victim sad, but ultimately "good" for neither) and divorce
(making the divorcer happy only relative to the sadness of the divorcee, but ultimately good for
both), with "crimes of passion" (from masturbation to murder) on the side of rape and
"unrequited love" (ie. stalking or cheating) on the side of divorce.

Arguments against reasoning that excludes emotional motives.
Since the time of Aristotle during the later "Golden Age" of Greek philosophy, there have been few
advancements in the arguments made that favour the premise of his ethics, that "happiness" is the
"greatest good." We find that all of these attempt to isolate "happiness" rather than to isolate
"goodness." This is because throughout all intervening history the "greatest good" has been
assumed to be that which is of or does the good of God. It has been considered contrary to this
definition of the "greatest good" to assert the goal of personal happiness, and therefore the
strategies to achieve selfish good have all been omitted from record. Thus, it has only been since
the beginning of the Enlightenment Era that philosophies have begun re-studying the "lost" arts
of Nicomachean ethics, and only a few schools of thought have yet formed on the subject that
warrant individual examination. Of these we find, following "deductive / inducitive" reasoning
contemporary to Aristotle, a lapse until the codefication of "scientific method" and, following
this, another lapse until the early and mid twentieth century with the philosophies of
"Objectivism" and psychological "Behaviourism." These schools of thought each have a single fatal
flaw in common which discredits them all: they are premised on the notion that reasoning can
occur absent from emotional motives. Suffice it to say that none of these schools account for the
presence of emotional motives as a factor. All seek to entirely exclude the premise of emotional
necessity to society. This completes the original assumption by Aristotle of the "greatest good"
being that which is most rewarded by society, the justification by his backwards reasoning for the
definition of the "happiness" of the individual as the "greatest good" of society. For the
revolution of "Objectivist" capitalist idealism into "globalist" collonialist-empire leading to the
"scientific method" of the Holocaust, human experiementation justified sociologically by
"behaviourst" psychologists, we owe thanks to Aristotle's use of induction preceding deduction.

Arguments against moral judgments based on emotional motives.
Aside from the obvious notion that judgments made in the "heat of the moment" result most often
in negative consequences for all involved, we have to pause to wonder why emotions not only
cannot be ignored by our reasoning, but are also a necessary component of our psychology. Why do
we experience emotions?
I assert that psychological experience of emotions is the result of the physical law of entropy.

Entropy applies universally to all physical bodies on all scales at once. This includes those
possessed of an additional psychological nature, the so-called "self-awareness" or consciousness.
We can say a person moreso than most wild animals poseses such a psychlogy, and that a wildanimal does so more than a tree, and that a tree does so more than a rock, and that a rock does so
no more than any other element, fire, air or water, which are the primary components of all the
heavens. Therefore, the greater the degree of consciousness, or "self-awareness," that a body
poseses, the more it can reason out emotions as a portion of its psychology. However, it is also
obvious that wild-animals, trees, rocks and the other elements of all nature can posess emotions,
and that the degree of their "self-awareness" only tempers their ability to reason them out. We
say, therefore, the temper of a wild-animal is greater than that of a person because the person
applies their psychology over their inherent emotions, while the beast lacks psychology, but is
possesed instead by even wilder emotions. Thus, a tree, rock or other element may also experience
the physical cause for emotions (giving off heat) even more than a wild-animal, however we cannot
certainly say that they experience this emotionally because they lack our psychology to reason. It
may be that psychology is a more reasoned form of emotion, or that emotion is experienced as only
a portion of psychology, or neither, or both, but we cannot say with asbolute certainty even
whether or not a rock experiences pain if broken, or even if an insect can appreciate happiness.

Arguments in favour of emotionally motive reasoning with no final moral judgment.
If we are to believe that "happiness" is equal to "goodness," as in the saying "the happiness from
love you take is equal to the good for love's sake that you make," and assume that, from the point
of view of "love" as the highest form of "happiness" is equivalent to "God," the highest form of
"good," as we have been encouraged to do for the past 2000 years, then we will consider any word,
a lie or truth, "good" news to us if it makes us "happy." Of course, this may prove true for us in
the immediate or most short-term sense, however in anything longer than the present moment, our
descisions based on such information, if false, will still lead to ill ends.
Consider the "good" news that the universe, once believed to already be "infinite," is now not only
"expanding," but that the rate of this expansion is actually visibly "increasing." Surely, if this
were the case, the news would be catastrophic, because our atoms would soon be torn apart as the
universe surpasses its prior infinitude and spills over its own edge into some nothingness beyond
what can be known. It would mean the end of the world and all life as we know it. Yet look around.
Life continues, the same, unaffected by such news, and apparently entirely unaffected by it if
such news were true. Therefore, we are told periodically "the end is nigh," in order to relieve our
fear of any end to our subservience when none ever occurs. The lie that the world is about to end
is "good" news; it makes us "happy" to hear it. Unfortunately it is not true, and therefore can
accomplish no actual "good" in reality.
Another such lie that is necessary for the survival of society is rising prices. By controlling the
apparent cost per earnings ratio of an average household in its national constiutency, a
government (or even only one corporation) can easily render its citizens "happy" and therefore
appear "good," or render them "sad" and therefore appear "evil." By manipulating its appearance
to the people, a governing body accomplishes the same effect, ie. appearing to make a "good"
leadership, as an individual does who similarly lies to other people while looking them in the
face.
However, better to positively prove one assertion than to disprove its opposite. So, more than
merely toppling the lie of Nicomachean ethics, we must assert our own form of ethics in its place,
that being one based on un-ending debate, ie. the "good" news of the Socratic method, without any
need or desire for a final conclusion on the issue of what is "good" and what is "bad." Obviously,
what is "good" according to one person's application of Nicomachean ethics will not agree with
what is "good" according to another person's application of it. Therefore, it cannot be held that
"happiness" is the "greatest good." What, however, is "happiness" and what, then, is "good"? We

may choose to dispense with the nature of what constitutes "happiness" by the method of eternal
questioning ("critical paranoia" according to Dali), and say that no final conclusion on the issue
of what is the highest form of happiness may ever be reached. Emotions are subjective, reasoning
can neither exclude them altogether nor survive if based on them alone, and the best way to do
away with their effect on our reasoning is to turn our attention to defining "good" in terms other
than those of our emotions.
In the next section I will address the concept of "good" irrelevant of subjective emotional
"happiness," that eudaimonia or social-flourishing that follows from a slavery-dependent
mentality. I will consider the "good" according to units of karma in an attempt to restore the
Platonic ideal that "good," like the four elements and cosmos, can be represented as a form in its
most atomic sense. Just as the four elements and cosmos were associated by Plato with the five
regular shaped solids at their most atomic or essential level, so too could we say that the
"greatest" good can be broken down into units or quanta of "karma." Furthermore, I would assert,
but will not go into deeper now, that only these particulate traits of "good" and "evil" can exist,
and that beyond them there is no "greater" good nor evil existing in the realm of forms or ideals.
This is, I will only say, why, I believe, Plato's forms were not recognised as more fundamental to
Aristotle in comprising his system of ethics dedicated to his own son, Nicomachus.

HOW DO WE KNOW GOOD FROM EVIL?
To know good as distinct from evil is to have loved and lost, for your heart yet yearns to return to
the source of your devotion, the forbidden fruit.
We are told by myths that immortality is good because it was fit for us in our youthful innocence,
but is now denied us in favour of cursed "free" will. We are told that our relative fore-sight and
ability to make accurate predictions is evil because death is all our only ultimate destiny, and
that immortality would be infinitely better, but that we can never know the difference now,
because for now we are mortal and cannot fore-see the time our death will come.
We are informed by our own five senses that nature is indifferent to our mythological projections
of moral standards. We are ultimately unrestricted, and even within society encouraged, to!lie,
but all evidence indicates that, the more we soften reality beneath the focus of our will, the
weaker its fabric becomes overall, until finally we must accept it as a zero-sum game: by
controlling reality we destroy reality.
We understand by our consciousness, our sixth-sense, our sense of self awareness, that by
accumulating past experiences we acquire the ability to more accurately predict outcomes. In
order to do this, it is necessary to filter the raw data of environmental sense stimuli through the
faculty of reason. The perimeter of the sixth-sense is defined by the six fundamentals of ethical
reasoning: who, what, when, where, why and how. By using past experiences to make pedictions, we
learn the difference between good and evil.

WHAT IS GOOD?
Good is a unit of positively-charged karma in our surrounding environment that attracts alike
positive and repels opposite negative karma that passes through our minds as thoughts. What
constitutes a good deed? Positive karma is passive: allowing the cause of good coincidences to find
you brings joy.
Ideal good can be thought to be absolutely pure, always existing for good only; neither containing,
contiguous to nor capable of conceiving of, any impurity to this ideal, it is entirely uninformed of
our own reality, wherein good is relative to evil. Ideal good must also be permanently
unchangeing, because to imagine it could be improved upon by change over time would mean it
would also be capable of perceiving its past, relative imperfection as evil, and thus its absolute
continuity would disintegrate into relative good and evil. Thus, ideal good is not only alien from,
but it must remain entirely unaware of, our own reality.
Realtive good may be a degenerate form of ideal good, as some claim, however ultimately this can
never be proven and thus it is irrelevant and unnecessary for our survival. In reality, relative
good is the highest good that can occur. We can know ideal good as an idea in our minds, but only
relative good can be done in reality, either by and for the self, or by and for the group.
Ideal good informs us of the need for group utility, not only to achieve individual motives of
social scale, but also to bring about benefit to the group as a whole. Thus, it should be obvious
that the better good than that of the self is the good of the group, however this is not the case.
Instead, some believe the only good possible in reality is the relative good of the self, while
others believe that, informed by ideal good, we can bring about the best good for ourselves only by
doing what is best for the group. Because there are different beliefs about what is better (relative
good for the self or the ideal good of the group), none should be believed. Instead, a third option,
based on a condition other than the self and/or the group, is most likely the ideal good.
Relative good means the good of the self is relative to the good of the group, but also that the more
one views the interior self as good or evil, the more the exterior world of groups will appear the

opposite, as evil or good.
The good of the self is best for any self, but irrelevant to the good of any group. The good of any
group is irrelevant to any self that is not part of it. The good of the group is the good of the self
for each member of the group. When a self seeks its own good, a group forms that seek the same
good as that self. When a self seeks to do harm to itself, no group forms to follow it.
When a group co-operates within itself, it more successfully competes with other groups that are
less internally co-operative. If a group competes against its similars, and co-operates with its
opposites, it may compete skillfully, but cannot persist. If a group competes with its opposites,
and co-operates with other groups that share a similar good, it will be seen as the "highest" or
"greatest" relative good by all.
The "highest" or "greatest" relative good is the good of the self and/or group that is most alike the
conditions for existence of the ideal good, despite that ideal good cannot exist in reality.
Rejecting the good of any groups, and/or the utility of relative good, a self does not need to either
sacrifice nor espouse the utility of the self as an ideal good. To the self, the good of the interior
self is the ideal good. However, relative to groups, in reality, the good of the self can only be done
by, and only by submitting to the good of, groups.
Affirming the good of all groups, and thus idealising the utility of relative good, the self may
dissolve its own good into group-utility, but this is not the same as the self dissolving into the
ideal good. The utility of self, which is the good of all groups, is not the same as ideal good. Doing
what is good for the group is not the same as good being done for goodness alone.
Neglecting the good of all groups, thus indifferent to reality, the ultimate good of the self is
detached apart from it like ideal good. This does not mean the ideal good can be done in reality,
even by ignoring the utility of self in groups and forgetting relative good in reality. The rejection
of self-worth being group-utility and the impossible affirmation of ideal good being possible in
reality are neither an ideal nor relative good.

WHAT IS EVIL?
Evil is a negatively-charged unit of karma in our surrounding environment that attracts alike
negative and repels opposite positive karmic particles that we focus on as thoughts in our minds.
What constitutes an evil deed? Evil is active: following such a negatively-charged course of
karmic coincidences to their source leads to regret.
Ultimate evil is not the destructive obliteration, nor the negation and nullifcation, nor the
transcendent unification, of all reality. Ultimate evil is done for it's own sake, but in reality even
this can accidentally do good. Ultimate evil must be, like ideal good, divided and entirely distinct
from reality, wherein only evil relative to good exists. Ultimate evil is the destructive
obliteration, the negation and nullification and the transcendent unificiation of ideal good and all
the relative good of reality. Ultimate evil occurs when ideal good and relative good are compared
and reality is found the lesser; this implies that, just as reality is less relative to ideal, there
must be a greater evil relative to reality. Ultimate evil only negates ideal good. Ultimate evil does
not require reality.
Reality exists only in the moment, with no inherent residue of past history and without any predetermined course for outcome. Reality is not a construct, like a game, a number-matrix, nor a
philosophical paradigm that can be controlled and its outcomes definitively predicted.
Reality exists irrelevant of our projections upon it of qualities and standards for good. In reality

there is only relative good and relative evil. In reality, there is no ideal good nor ultimate evil.
Reality requires relative evil. Relative evil requires relative good; so good began being and now is
real. Just so, relative good requires relative evil; so evil began being and now is real. Just as, in
reality, relative good is the highest good that can occur, so too in reality is relative evil the worst
evil that can be brought about. Just as we can imagine ideal good, but it must be distinct from
reality, so too can we imagine worse evil than can possibly occur in present nature.
Ideal good, by definition, cannot possibly exist in the presence of relative good, so relative good
is real, and ideal good merely an idea in our minds. Ultimate evil is simply the absence of the
idea of ideal good in the mind. A mind possessed by ultimate evil simply accepts relative good as
the highest good, and rejects the ideal of relative good done for its own sake. Replacing ideal good
with relative good recognises ideal good as only the lesser of two evils, and asserts that, if ideal
good ever did, even only accidentally, discover reality's relative good, both forms of good would
cease to exist, and all that would remain would be that third thing, the anti-thesis of both, the
absence of all good, both ideal and relative.
There are three conditions of the mind that arise following the acceptance of relative good as the
highest ideal of good. Some individuals follow one path, and so some groups also follow that path,
while some individuals follow another, and so some groups also follow the other path. However,
just as the whole sum of all individuals in these three types of groups constitute a single group
collectively, that is, an aggregate population, so too are all three of these conditions present
simultaneously in the individual mind of anyone in any of these three groups. Any self so
possessed by the ultimate evil of relative good simply chooses one of these three groups to belong
to, but is aware of and acts relative to the two other groups it rejects as well.
First the choice is made to forget. This means we choose to forget choosing to forget. This does not
mean we did not make the choice by and for ourselves. Having forgotten making the choice for
ourselves, because we made the choice to forget having done so, is often used as an excuse for not
taking personal responsibility and for individual fatalism. The first mental condition associated
with diminished expectations is therefore a docile personality type, one psychologically trapped
at the age and stage in personal development they had reached when they made the choice to
forget. The choice to forget is usually made because of physiological trauma, because we associate
such with evil, and then we choose to disassociate from this evil.
Second, we project this fictitious morality, dubiously rationalised, onto the indifferent
malleability of reality. By doing so, we assume the position of a moral high-ground which is,
while socially accepted as applicable, purely illusory and self-inflicted. The result is the
extreme psychological division between the interiorised ideal self and the exteriorised relative
reality. The more one sees one as good, they will see the other as evil. This creates a high pressure
differential on the tensile karmic surface structure of our membranous plasma aura. Inwardly we
are one person, while outwardly we are another, often very different from who we see ourselves as
inside. This second mental condition tends toward high stress levels as the mood fluctuates
rapidly from extreme high to low, cycling back and forth.
Third, we find evidence to support our fictitious assertion. There are two types of the person who
has reached this condition of mind following the compromse for a second-best reality: A) one who
believes in self-sacrifice to the group unto martyrdom for their cause, or B) one who believes in
self-aggrandisement and the absolute assumption of their assertion's validity; both regardless of
all factual evidence to the contrary. One who believes in self-sacrifice can be likened to a
shepherd, while one who believes in self-agrandisement can be likened to a goat-herder. Each of
these two groups has many names for the individuals in the opposite group, but do not give nor
take on such titles to themselves.

HOW DO WE CHOOSE GOOD OR EVIL?
True gnosis (lit. "the study of knowledge") occurs when, by applying the six fundamentals of
ethical reasoning to our sensory awareness of present-tense, mutable reality, we learn from past
experience how to apply our logical faculty to make more accurate predictions. In brief, "gnosis"
means "knowing good from evil" or, more precisely, being able to accurately "fore-see" right from
wrong. True Gnosis is not the ideal good, but it is the "highest" or "greatest" good possible within
a reality wherein good is relative to evil. True Gnosis is good being done for the good of doing good
alone.
Truth is founded on facts. Whereas there are infinite possible facts, there is only one central
truth. In the same manner we see that any event, if viewed from multiple points of view by
different observers at the same time, will be such a "singularity" or, rightly, a monad, while the
collection of all possible points of view, or "facts," constitutes a "plenum" or, properly, a divided
line. However, if one could collect and combine all possible points of view, "facts," on any event,
"truth," the sum of all facts would remain infinitely less than the singular truth. This is because
we are told, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Likewise, the mythology explains to us,
this is due to the certain ratio of the "divided line" being a porportion found throughout all
nature.
Lies are the opposite of facts, and fiction is the opposite of truth. There are two types of lie:
"little white lies," and "jokes."
"Little" lies comprise all moral mythology; these are lies we believe safe and teach to our
children. The concept of their being "as pure as the driven snow" in motivation derives from their
social application, essentially altruism, being seen as like in quality to the conditions of
existence of the ideal good. In other words, they comprise the selfless, group-oriented "greater"
relative good "above" the divided line.
"In-Jokes" are lies that can be spoken out in the open in the presence of a third-party without
them realising the true content of what is communicated. These comprise the quantity of symbolic
"value" exchanged between economists, substituting money in all equations for time. Thus, the
proliferation of obvious false-hoods comprises the "plenum" or spectrum of the "lesser" aspect of
the divided line.
Fiction is made up of beliefs whose foundations did not turn out to be have been based on facts.
Instead of what is clearly good: having both fore-sight and long-life, we are told by the perenniel
mythologies it is possible to have only one or the other. In other words, to have what is good, one
can have none of what is evil, and, likewise, to have what is evil is to ultimately lack any and all
capacity for ideal goodness. According to the fiction, we "can't have it both ways," however in the
example they use this is clearly not the case. Not only can we expand our own life-spans, no less
so than contract them, we can also improve on our inherent clairvoyant abilities. These objects of
such long lustre in the mythopeia are, logically, irrelevant to one another in reality.
The Ultimate Truth is that ideal good can exist only within fiction. Ideal good can exist only as an
idea in the mind, and thus it is separate from and unaware of the dimminished good of our reality.
Relative good reflects the quality of ideal good the best when applied by a group for the good of
the group, and less than this, by any individual for themselves, and following this, by an
individual for the group, and only least, by a group for an individual.
Reality is irrelevant to ultimate evil, which only negates ideal good. Insofar as reality exists as
the exteriorised environment of our aura, and insofar as the interior self is considered most like
the ideal good, we can see that ideal good and ultimate evil are simply two halves of one whole, and
that the substance of this monad is merely fiction itself.

benpadiah wrote:
Economical modeling on the innate and fundamental relationships of
individual rights.

In this initial offering we see that, from the origin point of nature, the angle of nurture acts like a
compass needle between the negatively charged tyranny and the positively charged freedom. The
motion of the Nurture needle toward tyranny we define as laws, and the motion of the compass
toward freedom we call "rights."

Here we see that, by a slight rotation of the above model, we can render a relationship or all right
angles representing a continuous line connecting all the corner points, between which the motion
of the model itself is represented as the forces of "law" and "right."

By rotating the model around a little further, we can see that the angles that seemed to be all right
angles do not necessarily need to be for the model to retain its essentially unilinear nature. Here
we see that there is a connection between each of the four exterior attributes and that the "force"
within is depicted as a bisectional shaft.

And here is my final offer. In this colourful little number we see that we can realign the
tetrehedral shaped structure of the preceeding model along the bisectional axis. We see here that
a third force, or rather, a second "needle," appears between the forces of "law" and "rights" that
measures the midpoint distance between "freedom" and "tyranny" as effected by the forces of
"communication" and "property."
To return to the "final offering" model, we can see it is clearly comprised of two triangles: one of
them has as its base angles "nurture" (water sign) and "nature" (earth sign) and has "freedom" at
its peak. The other has "communication" and "property" (square and compass) as its base, and its
pinnacle point is between "nature" and "nurture" (earth and water).
Here we can see these two triangles separated from one another:

On the left we see the triangle foreshortened in the last diagram, here rotated square with our
line of sight. Likewise the primary triangle has simply been turned a slight amount from the last
diagram, such that the triangle foreshortened in the last diagram appears here now edge-on.
Now, from this angle we can begin to dissect the final model and discern the finer difference
between the relationships of the different labels. So, here, for example, is the slice of the "final"
model that depicts all the same parts and relationships as the graph suggested initially.

Here we see some additional relationships, such as the delimiting of the range between tyranny
and freedom by rights and law. This "slice" of the model also presents some very important
measurements of length and degree of triangles that I get into in later levels. The most important
thing to notice about this diagram however is that it establishes the manner in which the motion
of the "needle" measuring "rights" versus "laws" wobbles back and forth: that is, "nature"
indicates motion in one direction (earth sign to water sign), while "nurture" indicates motion in
the opposite direction (water sign to earth sign).

By taking the model and rotating it until we are familiar with the orientations of its parts to one
another from all different symmetric perspectives, we familiarise ourselves with all the detailed
ins-and-outs of the relationships the diagram describes.
So, here we are looking at three different angles from which we can see the attributes applied to
the model, or, more specifically, we are looking at the same model from three different points of
view. Consider how the relationships of the labeled attributes change for each case.
The three triple angles combine to form the quadralateral triangle, that is, the tetrahedron,
simplest of the five Platonic Solids. The tetrahedron, symbolised as the three triangles, and the
three triangles themselves, symbolised by the pyramid, are all symbols of the Illuminati we talk
about more in higher levels.
Tell me your thoughts on these models, which are as of this date, copyright Jonathan Barlow Gee.

"This kind of blasphemy and swearing constitutes the worst kind of refuse and dregs
of the earth, and punishment of these profane magi is well deserved."

from: Pseudomonarchia Daemonum
by: Johann Weyer
The scriptures of western monotheism are very confusing. So open to debate are they
that no two people familiar with them interpret their meaning the same way. The 3
major world religions formed around these scriptures have long attempted to unify
their adherants’ interpretation of the scriptures, and each has kept one third of the
scriptures as its sole possession, denying the validity of the other two without their
own portion, which they unanymously claim to be the most necessary key to all the
scriptures’ interpretation. Because it is not human nature for anyone to interpret
anything in exactly the same way as anyone else, these religions have long used the
practise of magick to hypnotise their adherents into unanymous interpretations. But,
just as the 3 religions have split up their scriptures between them, so too have they
divided among them the methods of magick they use to hypnotise their adherents. By
doing this, they have divided among the 3 of them the single metaphysics of magick,
and thus none of them fully understand the practise of magick, of which they each
possess only one third part. The result is the hypnosis of their followers by a third of
the true metaphysics of magick. Only the re-combination of all 3 monotheist world
religions’ methods of hypnosis of their adherents will restore the true and original
metaphysics of magick. The true metaphysics of magick itself effects the exact
opposite of hypnosis of its adherents: it awakens them to the true nature of the world.
Thus, by dividing the scriptures into 3 world religions, each one uses a third part of
the true and original metaphysics of magick to hypnotise their adherents; only by
studying all the scriptures of these 3 major world religions of monotheism can one
begin to understand the true and original metaphysics of magick. This practise is the
pursuit of awakening to a true understanding of the nature of the world. By recombining the scriptures of the 3 monotheist world religions, one accomplishes an
awakening from the hypnosis of the 3 religions, which each demand the strict
obedience of their adherents to one specific interpretation of their scriptures.
To go into the details of the 3 monotheist major world religions’ divided scriptures or
methods of hypnosis using only partial elements of the true and original metaphysic
of magick is irrelevant. No consensus of interpretation is possible, even in a couple.
However, the facts that these religions’ scriptures are, individually, only partial, and
that, by dividing the true and original metaphysics of magick only effects hypnosis
of their adherents are undeniable.
Despite the confusing nature of the scriptures of western monotheism, the consensus
opinion is that the basic premise of monotheism is, nevertheless, an absolute truth.
Regardless of the endless debateability of interpretation of these scriptures, all alive
will agree on the essential truth of the basis for belief in a monotheist God. The fact
no two people can define their “God” exactly the same way is taken as proof of the
existence of a single deity, common to all, approached uniquely by each individual.

The universal law proving the omnipotence of the monotheist concept of God as a
single deity is defined by its irony. Because the true and original metaphysics of
magick has been divided, and the 3 major world religions of monotheism each only
possess a part of its original practise, the common belief among all adherents of
monotheism, regardless of their religion, is that the universal law proving God’s
existence is an ironic incompletion of any and all natural events without it. Because
of the universality of this “Law of Irony,” we impute the existence of a single
sentience surperceding any and all natural events.
This proof by the “Law of Irony” for the existence of a single omnipotent sentience
superceding any and all natural events depends on the division of the scriptures
among the religions that results in the hypnotism of their adherents. If the
scriptures are re-combined, the true and original metaphysics of magick can begin
to be comprehended. At this point, the understanding by the individual student of the
re-combined scriptures of universal natural laws supercedes the belief in the proof
for God by the universality of the “Law of Irony.” What is thus explained as “the Will
of God” by those who see only divided parts of the true metaphysics of magick is, by
anyone who understands the scriptures in their totality, better explained as resulting
from further natural forces than are yet comprehended by those who study only a
divided form. The universal “Law of Irony” is replaced by the comprehension of the
true metaphysics of magick in the mind of someone who has replaced belief in one
single religion’s interpretation of divided scriptures with the study of them all.
This does not disprove the existence of God, nor does it replace the “Will of God” with
solely natural forces. However, it is only through a comprehension of the true
metaphysics of magick achieved by studying all the monotheist religions’ scriptures
that we can better understand the existence and the “Will” of the One True God.
Dogmatic faith in the interpretation of a divided part of the monotheist scriptures
provided by one of the 3 major monotheist world religions cannot provide as much or
as complete a comprehension of the existence and will of God as is accomplished by
studying the re-combination of all 3 major world religions’ monotheist scriptures.
When we say that the “Law of Irony” as proof for the existence of God willing into
being any and all natural events is not only based on a divided comprehension of the
true metaphsysics of universal law, but is altogether replaced by the comprehension
of this true metaphysics when one re-combines all the monotheist scriptures and
breaks the spell of the 3 major world religions of monotheism, we mean that all that
which appears as “Ironic” and is taken as proof for the “Will of God” is
comprehended according to its true cause; but this does not prove God does not exist.
Nor does the complete comprehension of the true and original metaphysics of magick
as only universal laws elevate an awakened adherent of a dogmatic belief in one of
the 3 world religions to the status of “God” themselves. Just by knowing the way
universal laws work, one cannot effect their will on them. Magick as defined as only
manifestation of one’s own will over any and / or all natural events is incomplete. By
knowing and applying one’s comprehension of natural laws for someone whose
knowledge is inferior to one’s own may effectively accomplish the illusory
apperance of such “magick” to an adherent of dogmatic belief, however this is far
from being complete comprehension of the true and original metaphysics of magick.
The true and original metaphysics of magick comprehended as all natural laws
supercedes the dogmatic faith in “magick” as simply sensory deception. Thus, all past
definitions of “magick” as only manifestation by osmotic mental projection are false.

Because a higher comprehension of universal natural laws allows only the illusion
of “magick” as manifestation of one’s own control over these laws; because the 3
major world religions of monotheism each possess only a third part of the sciptures
of monotheism, and use their portion to hypnotise their adherents into dogmatic
faith in a single interpretation of these thus divided scriptures; because they lack a
more complete comprehension of universal laws, and so label “Irony” as “magick”
and proof of divine intervention; and because they use their third part of the
complete comprehension of the true metaphysics of universal laws to hypnotise
their adherents; for all these reasons, “magick” as defined as manifestation is
unbiquitously outlawed by each of the 3 monotheist world religions. Each cites quotes
from their own portion of the monotheist scriptures in support of this, but the ban
on “magick” as the attempt to elevate oneself to the status of the One True God by
manifesting their will over any or all natural events is unanymous among all 3. This
hypnotic dogmatism of belief in magick as merely manifestation has led to a ban on
almost any new form of comprehension of natural laws.
However, just as studying all the monotheist scriptures elevates one’s comprehension
of the existence and will of the One True God, so too does practising “magick” in the
form of studying natural laws break the spell of hypnosis cast by the 3 religions. This
is the real reason “magick” is anathema; not because it is “evil” or goes against the
will of the One True God; it is because it threatens breaking the hypnotic dogma of
the 3 major monotheist religions of the modern world. Therefore, the true
metaphysics of magick as universal law is neither known, nor advocated as allowed to
be known, by any adherent of these 3 monotheist religions. Nevertheless, studying
the re-combination of the monotheist scriptures and better comprhending natural
laws neither disproves the existence of God as an invisible omniversal sentience, nor
elevates the practitioner of such study to the status of such a deity. “Magick” is not an
offense to God; it is a threat to religions’ authority.
Re-combining all the monotheist scriptures allows one a better comprehension of
the existence and will of the One True God, and thus of the natural laws that govern
the causes of any and all natural events. This process can be defined as the true act of
“magick.”
Because the monotheist scriptures are confusing, there is no wrong interpretation of
them. However, just as there can be no wrong interpretation of the scriptures, so too
can there be no right interpretation of the scriptures. This applies in whole and part.
The final moral of studying the re-combination of all monotheist scriptures is that it
is the will of the divided religions for one to do so, and that for better comprehension
of natural laws, one does not only not need to study the scriptures in only one
proscribed method of interpretation, but does not even need to study them at all.
The awakening from dogmatic hypnosis to 1 of the 3 western monotheist religions is
accomplished through realising that God’s will manifest as natural laws occurs
regardless of one’s interpretation of the monotheist scriptures, or even one’s
interpretation of the monotheist God.
That is why religion forbids magick. Religious law is thus nothing but the attempt by
humans to enforce prohibition over one’s comprehension of universal natural laws.
While it is possible for God to set laws for man, it is impossible for humans to make
demands on God. The 3 religions interceding as intermediaries to effect the will of
anyone over the will of God are practising mass-hypnosis using only partial truths.

A specific quote, though not the only such example, on the prohibition against
“magick” of any kind from the monotheist scriptures is Deuteronomy 18.

pckmw chnmw wnwum symsq msq cab wtbw wnb rybum rb aum al
There shall be none among you who sacrificially burns son or daughter, no one who
practices divination, tells fortunes, interprets omens, or is a sorcerer

mytmh la crdw wnudyw bwa lacw rbj rbjw
or a charmer, or a familiar, or wizard or necromancer.

from: Deuteronomy 18:10-11
While devastatingly specific in its condemnation of “magick” in all forms as were
practised at the time, the scripture remains confusing and incomplete. The literature
of this era in the scriptures is meant to mimic the interpretation of the “Law of
Irony” as proof for the existence and will of God. As such, there is a proliferation of
aliteration, punnery and rhymes that pepper the texts with colourful gems of pure
anomonopeaic, perfectly harmonic cadence. The Hebrew letters form Semitic words
that relate to one another alike lyrics in a song, and which can be understood almost
only, if not best, in its original language. Here we see Hebrew fypck is pronounced
“kesheph” in Semitic, meaning: sorcery. Likewise, rbk is said“chabar” and means: to
join, implying to cast a spell by making pacts. The word msq, “qesem,” is a divination
for seeing the future. One who does any of these is called ynudy, “yiddeoni”: a wizard.
However, what this monotheist scripture is outlawing is obviosuly something being
practised previously to its proscription against, eg. what monotheist religions label
“magick.” These arts, lumped up such, were the practise of the predecessor and foe of
monotheist religions, eg. pantheism. The study and practise of these arts of “magick”
was outlawed by monotheism at a time when monotheism was first breaking forth
from the pantheist religions of the era.
At the figurative heart of monotheism’s argument against “magick” as the practise
of pantheism was the association of it with blood-letting or “petro” rites. “Petro,”
Latin for stone, refers here to the “Herms” or mile-markers along ancient roads that
were fit with a crotch-height, erect stone phallus. The “Herms” of the Meditteranean
and the “menhirs” of Europe were originally left-over from an early neo-lithic era
of human development. Although their original purpose as distance-markers along
migrational routes of palelothic hunters was forgotten by the time of Deuteronomy,
the practise of offering a blood-letting sacrifice at these locations was not. Thus, not
one, nor only a few, but all these monumental stone intersections were bloodied.
The monotheist scriptures early on introduce the theme of juxtasposing “life” as
blood and “knowledge” as vegetable, forms of offering. They state that Cain, whom
had offered unto the monotheist God a burnt offering of herbs, slew Abel his brother
in a fit of jealousy for the monothesit God favouring Abel’s offering of burning gore.
Following from this the sacrifice of blood is further associated with pantheism in the
form of human sacrifice being less preferable to the monotheist God than animal
sacrifice.
Let us consider a concise recounting of the history of the blood-letting sacrifice in a
series of paraphrased quotes from wikipedia, the online open-source encyclopedia.

In Judaism, a sacrifice is known as a Korban, from the Hebrew root brk, meaning "to
approach/draw near." Sacrifices were either blood sacrifices (animals) or blood-less sacrifices
(grain and wine). Blood sacrifices were divided into the Olah sacrifices (burnt offerings, in which
the whole animal was burnt), guilt offerings (in which part was burnt and part left for the priest)
and peace offerings (in which similarly only part of the animal was burnt).
There are three different subdivisions of slaughter offering:
• Thank offering: made in response to an unexpected positive change in circumstance.
• Votive offering: made in response to a positive change in circumstance, when a vow in
hope of such a change had previously been made.
• Free-will offering: more spontaneous slaughter offerings.
A holocaust is a religious animal sacrifice that is completely consumed by fire. The word derives
from the Ancient Greek holocaustos, which is used solely for one of the major forms of sacrifice.
Holocausts are conducted at night, without wine, and offer black-hided animals at a low altar,
with their heads directed downwards; in all these they are opposed to the commensal sacrifice
given to the Olympian gods.
Some of the ritual laws, or at least portions of these laws, involve two similar animals being
brought to the priest, one being killed in a certain manner, and its blood sprinkled onto the
sinner, the other being sent away. Such rituals involve the idea that sin can be transferred, from
the sinner to the living animal, via the blood of its dead associate.
Shechita is the ritual slaughter of mammals and birds according to Jewish dietary laws. The act is
performed by severing the trachea, oesophagus, carotid arteries and jugular veins using an
extremely sharp blade ("chalef"), and allowing the blood to drain out.
The knife used for shechita is called a hallaf by Ashkenazim or a sakin. In previous centuries the
hallaf was made of forged steel, which was not reflective and was difficult to make both smooth
and sharp. In the mid 1700’s, the Baal Shem Tov, fearing that Sabbateans were scratching the
knives in a way not detectable by normal people, introduced the Hasidische Hallaf. The
Hasidische Hallaf differs from the previously used knife in that it was made from molten steel
and polished to a mirror gloss in which scratches could be seen as well as felt. The new knife was
controversial and was one of four reasons listed in the Brody Cherem for the excommunication of
the Chassidim.
Eid al-Adha or "Festival of Sacrifice" or "Greater Eid" is an important religious holiday
celebrated by Muslims worldwide to commemorate the willingness of Abraham (Ibrahim) to
sacrifice his son. The narration is referred to as the Akedah in Hebrew and as the Dhabih in
Arabic. Many Bible scholars have suggested this story's origin was a remembrance of an era when
human sacrifice was abolished in favor of animal sacrifice.
The deus ex machina salvation in some versions of Iphigeneia (who was about to be sacrificed by
her father Agamemnon) and her replacement with a deer by the goddess Artemis, may be a
vestigial memory of the abandonment and discrediting of the practice of human sacrifice among
the Greeks in favour of animal sacrifice.
References to animal sacrifice appear in the New Testament, such as the parents of Jesus
sacrificing two doves (Luke 2:24) and the Apostle Paul performing a Nazirite vow even after the
death of Christ (Acts 21:23-26).

In 330-340 AD Alexandrian bishop Epiphanius claimed to have defected from a sect called the
Phibionites, which were claimed to worship a snake, have sexual intercourse during religious
ceremonies, and eat aborted fetuses - considered to be "the perfect mass".
In later Scandinavian practice, human sacrifice appears to have become more institutionalised,
and was repeated as part of a larger sacrifice on a periodic basis (according to Adam of Bremen
every nine years). Adam von Bremen recorded human sacrifices to Odin in 11th-century Sweden,
at the Temple at Uppsala, a tradition which is confirmed by Gesta Danorum and the Norse sagas.

So we see that ritual human sacrifice continued in the west a very long time after the
inception of monotheism’s apostasizing it as an aborhent practise of “black magick.”
It was practised by the Norse Vikings around the middle of the feudal “dark ages” and
mixed with apocrypha brought back during the Crusades to ignite the Inquisition
against the Albegensian Heresy, eg. the practise of pantheist “magick” in general.
While there is much written in the histories about the “blood libel” against the Jews,
or the false accusation of them continuing annual ritual human sacrifices today,
there is no memorial of all the names of those tortured and burnt alive for failing to
guess the Question’s expectation of a confession of guilt before the third degree. To
say that ritual human sacrifice still occurs anywhere on earth now among the
monotheist religions is considered criminal because for so many centuries the
Ashkenazi Semitic exiles of Roman Judea were themselves sacrificed upon the flame.
Just as the beginning of the shift in monotheism toward animal rather than human
sacrifice began with the moral of the scripture on Abraham’s preparation to
sacrifice his son to the monotheist God, the “blood libel” curse on monotheist human
sacrifice began contemporary to the beginning of monotheism’s shift away from
blood-letting sacrifices of any kind, and toward the replacement of it with bloodless
offerings of food and drink instead. This was the era when the scriptures describe
the Christian Messiah, Jesus the Christ from Nazareth, being criminally tortured and
crucified as a human sacrifice to the monotheist God by the Jerusalem Sanhedrin.
The scriptures describe the Sanhedrin agreeing to an offer made by Roman
Procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate, prior to the crucifixtion of Jesus that the blood of
their human sacrifice should be not on the hands of pantheist Rome, but on the
heads of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin, when they cried “his blood be on us and on our
children!” This curse accounts in the scriptures for the historical expulsion of the
Hebrew Palestinian Semites from their religion’s Holy Lands, Judea and Israel.
The actual details of the “blood libel” ritual carried out to fulfill this curse upon the
Jews placed on them by Pilate in the name of Caesar, then the God of monotheist
Rome, began being circulated as early as 38 AD by Apion, and are here repeated from
his writings by Flavius Josephus, the Hebrew rabbi Legionaire and nephew of Caesar.
"Antiochus found in our temple a bed, and a man lying upon it, with a small table before him, full
of dainties, from the [fishes of the] sea, and the fowls of the dry land... he fell down upon his
knees, and begged to be released; and that when the king bid him sit down, and tell him who he
was, and why he dwelt there, and what was the meaning of those various sorts of food that were set
before him the man made a lamentable complaint, and with sighs, and tears in his eyes, gave him
this account of the distress he was in; and said that he was a Greek and that as he went over this
province, in order to get his living, he was seized upon by foreigners, on a sudden, and brought to
this temple, and shut up therein, and was seen by nobody, but was fattened by these curious
provisions thus set before him; and that truly at the first such unexpected advantages seemed to
him matter of great joy; that after a while, he inquired of the servants that came to him and was by
them informed that it was in order to the fulfilling a law of the Jews, which they must not tell
him, that he was thus fed; and that they did the same at a set time every year: that they used to

catch a Greek foreigner, and fat him thus up every year, and then lead him to a certain wood, and
kill him, and sacrifice with their accustomed solemnities, and taste of his entrails, and take an
oath upon this sacrificing a Greek, that they would ever be at enmity with the Greeks; and that
then they threw the remaining parts of the miserable wretch into a certain pit."

from: Against Apion
by: Flavius Josephus
The accusation of ritual human sacrifice was repeated in the early feudal dark ages,
the early 4th century AD, by Socrates, the Greek Christian church historian of the
newly constructed city of Constantinople, sponsored by Emperor Constantine I, who
converted to Christianity around the same time.
In this way they indulged in many absurdities, and at length impelled by drunkenness they were
guilty of scoffing at Christians and even Christ himself; and in derision of the cross and those
who put their trust in the Crucified One, they seized a Christian boy, and having bound him to a
cross, began to laugh and sneer at him. But in a little while becoming so transported with fury,
they scourged the child until he died under their hands. This conduct occasioned a sharp conflict
between them and the Christians; and as soon as the emperors were informed of the circumstance,
they issued orders to the governor of the province to find out and punish the delinquents.

from: the Ecclesiastical History, Book VII, Ch. XVI
by: Socrates Scholasticus
By the time of Christian St. Augustine of Hippo, Algeria, around the turn of the 5th
century AD, the “blood libel” was already deeply ingrained in association with the
accusation of “magick” in general repeated from the quote in Deuteronomy.
Moreover, against those magic arts, concerning which some men, exceedingly wretched and
exceedingly impious, delight to boast, may not public opinion itself be brought forward as a
witness? For why are those arts so severely punished by the laws, if they are the works of deities
who ought to be worshipped?!Shall it be said that the Christians have ordained those laws by
which magic arts are punished? With what other meaning, except that these sorceries are without
doubt pernicious to the human race... .

from: City of God, book VIII, ch. 19
by: St. Augustine
The French Pope, Innocent VI, born Etienne Aubert, issued a rejection of all
allegations of the “blood libel” in 1247, reacting to the repitition of it by Thomas of
Cambray, who said that “solo sanguine Christiano” (only Christian blood) had to be
shed annually to cure the Jews of generational hemorrhages.
Certain of the clergy, and princes, nobles and great lords of your cities and dioceses have falsely
devised certain godless plans against the Jews, unjustly depriving them by force of their
property, and appropriating it themselves;...they falsely charge them with dividing up among
themselves on the Passover the heart of a murdered boy...In their malice, they ascribe every
murder, wherever it chance to occur, to the Jews. And on the ground of these and other
fabrications, they are filled with rage against them, rob them of their possessions without any
formal accusation, without confession, and without legal trial and conviction, contrary to the
privileges granted to them by the Apostolic See...Since it is our pleasure that they shall not be
disturbed,...we ordain that ye behave towards them in a friendly and kind manner. Whenever any
unjust attacks upon them come under your notice, redress their injuries, and do not suffer them to
be visited in the future by similar tribulations.

from: "Mandate to the prelates of Germany and France to annul
all measures adopted against the Jews on account of
the ritual murder libel, and to prevent accusation
of Arabs on similar charges.”
by: Pope Innocent IV
In 1486 came the publication of “the Witch’s Hammer,” a detailed account of alleged
Satanic Sabbats involving the practise of all sorts of magick, including copulating
with the goat-foot “Pan,” provided from the confessions under torture of Gypsies and
Pagans obtained during the Crusade against the Albigensian Heresy of Catharism
called the Inquisition, begun amost 300 years prior. “The Witch’s Hammer” makes it
clear that the false accusations of Socrates Scholasticus remained unforgotten.
The method by which they profess their sacrilege through an open pact of fidelity to devils varies
according to the several practices to which different witches are addicted. And to understand this
it first must be noted that there are, as was shown in the First Part of this treatise, three kinds of
witches; namely, those who injure but cannot cure; those who cure but, through some strange pact
with the devil, cannot injure; and those who both injure and cure. And among those who injure, one
class in particular stands out, which can perform every sort of witchcraft and spell,
comprehending all that all the others individually can do. Wherefore, if we describe the method of
profession in their case, it will suffice also for all the other kinds. And this class is made up of
those who, against every instinct of human or animal nature, are in the habit of eating and
devouring the children of their own species.

from: Malleus Maleficarum Part 2, Ch. 2
by: James Sprenger, Henry Kramer
It was almost exactly around this time, give or take merely a decade at most, that we
find the first publication of a “grimoire” or “book of magick” emanate from the
Italian Renaissance. The Greater Key of King Solomon describes the attributes and
images for constructing amulets that honor in Hebrew letters the 7 planetary or
“Olympic” dieties. From this work we find the following description for how to make
an animal sacrifice using the blood of a bat.
After this, take the needle or other convenient instrument of art, as will be said later on, and
pierce the bat in the vein which is in the right wing; and collect the blood in a small vessel... .

from: Clavicula Salomonis, Book 2, ch. 16
by: SL Mathers (ed.)
These “grimoires” have, for the last 500 years or so, provided the sole inspiration for
the study of theoretical “magick.” They include theurgies and demonologies,
evocations and invocations, hundreds of “mathemagical” number-squares, and
countless squiggles symbolising the signatures of hundreds or thousands of sentient
spirits, inhabiting limitless realms in an invisible landscape, overlapping our own.
Take your kid; place it on a block with the throat turned upward, so that it may be easier for you
to cut it; be ready with your knife, and cut the throat at a single stroke, pronouncing the name of
the Spirit whom you wish to invoke... . "Whosoever would evoke the devil must sacrifice to him a
dog, a cat and a hen; these animals must be the property of the operator, who must also pledge
himself to eternal fidelity and obedience, and must receive a special mark upon his body
impressed by the devil himself. His recompense is an absolute control over three infernal spirits,
respectively of earth, water and air."

from: the Book of Black Magic, ch. 2
by: AE Waite
And yet, what validity does such “magick” have? It is based on the history of the
moral and legal suppression of blood sacrifices. It derives solely from the association
of all forms of “magick” with human-sacrifice. It is solely a study of self-proclaimed
“pagans” now, who are simply recalcitrant monotheists, who know, yet simply deny,
the idea of the existence and the will of the omniversal sentient One True God, as it
has been defined thus far by the 3 major monotheist religions. They call themselves
“agnostics,” meaning that they neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of
such a God, but that they remain open to the possibility that one might exist. In short,
they are open-minded Gnostics, who have studied all the scriptures of monotheism,
and found the true and original metaphysics of magick to be greater than them. They
as often refute as affirm the validity of these scriptures, picking and choosing which
Bibliomancies to fancy debateable for the day. Yet ultimately, they remain merely a
modern by-product of the 3 major western monotheist religions.
But we cannot cynically deny the validity of their belief in the simultaneous
existence and non-existence of the monotheist God. Therefore, these “grimoires” of
“magick” offer neither less, nor more, inspiration to a student of the true and
original metaphysics of “magick” than do all the re-combined monotheist scriptures.
In truth, if there is a God, according to the specifications of a “most high” form of
sentient mind, the nature of its thoughts would be ineffable to us regardless.
What here follows is a collection of all the “grimoires’” most pertinent information,
arranged in the standard format of these books on practical “magick.” First follow
the terms of “magick,” in chronolgical order all the definitions thereof; second
follows the history, describing the origins of the contents of the work; third follow
the invocative prayers to be recited before undertaking the particular “magickal”
work; fourth follow the barberous names of evocation, in descending rank; fifth
follow the lamens and sigils of these same. Following this I will include additional
appendices depicting all the relevant tools of these crafts and workings of this art.
This work is not intended for any practical use, only for philosophical study. Engage
in any of the dark evocations given here solely at your own risk.

topic: Illuminism 101A
title:!Illuminist Luciferian-Satanism vs. Judaeo-Christian Islam
author: Jonathan Barlow Gee
organisation: the Pythagorean Order of Death (POD)
location: Tallahassee, Florida, USA
date: 4-25-2012
synopsis:
The ideas of right and wrong are universally known of, and cannot be denied by
ignorance. Thus, there does exist a moral argument for a proclivity within all nature
toward the opposite extremes of these binary options, eg. a universally generalisable
axiom encompassing the entirety of all di-polar choices between "good" or "evil."
This supra-natural realm, invisibly super-imposed as idea onto nature by our
morally-reasoning minds as a species, is necessarily 1:1 with the history of the entire
cosmos, but may also supercede our world-line up-till and including now, and imply
the existence of a "penumbra" or "halo" beyond and around the edge of the presentlens on the light-cone sum-over-histories. This perpetualy retreating horizon
comprising the short-term future, insofar as it is both ideal and morally-reasoned,
may prove divisible into the world-lines of a "heaven" and a "hell." The existence of
two, potentially parallel, time-lines beyond our own is implied, further, to justify the
"intelligent design" model for our own plane of existence as being a middle-ground
between these extremes. The ultimate polarity of "right," of "good" and of "heaven" is
"God," while the ultimate polarity of "wrong," of "evil" and of "hell" is "Satan." This
essay will attempt to analyse the manner in which this model implies to the minds of
our species, falsely, a concept of duty to serve either side of this debate.
introduction:
What makes a man "good"? It is said, "good comes from within and is shown forth by a
man's actions, their deeds." However, the same is said to be true for "evil." Thus,
"good" and "evil" may both be traits within us all that can only be shown forth by our
actions and deeds. Therefore, both "good" and "evil" exist within us before we express
them because both are ideas that our morally-reasoning minds super-impose onto
ourselves and our natural realities. "Good" and "evil" are both ideas, but they are
agreed by all alive and who have lived before now to not be able to co-exist within
one's minds toether at the same time. One can't embrace the idea of "good" to its
fullest at the same time one is embracing the idea of "love" to its fullest, because these
are opposite conditional mental-states. For example, "love" and "hate" are strong
passions, but essentially boil down to "approach" or "avoid," the same "fight" or
"flight" instinct that is innate even in binary-ended flat-worms. However, if we
"love" and "hate" someone at the same time, our passion will feed on this instinct
until we lose our mental sense of well-being and sense of survival entirely.
Essentially, the proof that "good" and "evil" cannot be co-held at once in anyone's
mind is that all who do so end up becoming a danger to their society and to their
surroundings.
So, what makes anything "good"? There is no popular consensus, and the majority of
our species throughout the period of our written histories at least have failed to
resolve this issue before now either. It is said that the ratio of "good" to "evil" favours
evil because what is Good is Only Good, but what is good AND Also evil is really only
Evil. Therefore, it is inherently a trait of good within natural reality to be rare, but
not due to that being a necessary trait of "good" as a universally generalisable
truism. So, for example, it can be said, "goodness is scarce, but scarcity is not good." If

"good" and "evil" are both ideas originating from within the mind, but which can
only be expressed and apprehended as active deeds over time, !but "good" is rarer
than "evil," than we can postulate the following to be a truism of "good" in general:
"A Good is what one has less of than one wants." Thus, a "Good" exists in reality,
defined by scarcity of supply and increase of demand; but "Good" as an ideal exists
only outside reality, in the invisible underworld of the mind. An "ideal Good" is
anything that is "too good to be true," meaning that it is "ideal" and exists outside of
reality, but can still be apprehended by the mind. The sum total of one's imagination
is, for example, "too good to be true," and thus it is the products of one's imagination,
ideals and mind that become the products of their active deeds; thus, a "good idea"
made real is a "good" or "service."!Although the majority of our species might say
their mental imaginations far exceed the possibilities for modern reality to provide
them the building materials necessary to realise their loftiest dreams, this in itself
explains why "goods" are rare, while 3/4ths of all energy and time is spent making
"bad ideas" real instead. Even our imagination is, ultimately, based at least 3/4ths of
the time on the reality we perceive outside. The mental realm itself is comprised of:
the "good" imagination - that which is entirely free; and the "bad" imagination - that
part based on prior reality; as well as the realms of past-memories; and dreams,
which combine memories and the realm of the imagination. Past memories, dreams,
"bad ideas" and "good ideas" combine to form the invisible realm of the mind.
Memories, dreams and "bad" ideas are "evil" while only the free imagination is "good"
because the mind follows the same rules for ratios of "good" to "evil" as reality (the
two must be exactly 1:1 correspondent).
terminology:
The mind is made up of: 1) past-memories, considered evil for being based upon
materially real events; 2) dreams, considered a combination of real-memories with
imagination, considered evil for being partially based on reality; 3) "foolish ideas,"
based on "wrong" choices and considered evil for distracting activity toward evil
deeds; 4) "inspiring ideals," based on "right" choices and considered the sole "good" in
the realm of the mind for being scarce.
Reality is comprised of both natural and artificial constructions of material
environments. The mind super-imposes itself morally onto the nature of its
surroundings. Thus, reality is below the realm of the mind like the land and ocean
are below the air and starry-skies. Insofar as "reality" is determined by imposing the
ratio of "3/4 more evil than good" then the mental realm must also be considered
"true" in the sense of being a super-natural appendix to material reality.
Thus, there are two forms of "Good": 1) a real "good," such as a commodity that one
desires to acquire from someone else through a fair method of transaction with them;
and 2) an "ideal good," defined as a "good idea" that deserves to be made real and
would benefit nature if it were.
methodology:
The condition of our species existing in natural material reality and in societies with
one another is predicated on the dualism between accepting reality as a "necessary
evil" and desiring inspiration as the "highest ideal." There are various forms of
expression in our active deeds this can engender: 1) enlightenment: when the mind
is able to transcend all stressors in its immediate physical environment immediately
and ascends directly to a state of calm clarity in which the most reasonable choice

becomes most rapidly apparent. 2) meditation: when the mind must set itself aside for
a time before being able to attain a state of calm clarity where inspiration may be
allowed to occur without impedence. 3) struggle: when the mind aspires toward the
ideal of calm clarity and inspiration, but fails to be able to achieve these for any
prolonged duration due to environmental stressors and the distractions of reality. 4)
self-suppression: when the mind must actively prevent itself from succumbing to
distractions in order to simply survive, thus causing itself to avoid ALL temptations,
even those potentially leading to a better situation for that mind.
Wherever there is dualism there is quadruplism implied. Thus, between "God" and
"Satan" there are 3 other pairs of opposite conditions: 1) "right" vs. "wrong," 2)
"good" vs. "evil," and 3) "heaven" vs. "hell." However, from here on out, the more
subtle distinctions so far idenfied will be considered as consistently implied by the
nature of this topic, however will not be dwelt on in such detail. As we have seen
already, the 75% or 3/4ths ratio of "evil" to "good" in all things, both "real" in the
material sense and / or in the solely mental sense, is the direct result of this
quadrupling of the initial duality. The result of this ratio is the conclusion: "good is
rare and evil plentiful in reality and the mind." However, from this point in this
essay onwards, we will be looking not at the moral terms of "good" and "evil," but the
history of our species' understanding of these as personified concepts in the forms of
"God" and "Satan."
history:
The fossil record indicates the hominid populations would have been too sparse and
too dispersed to consistently cross one anothers' nomadic migrational routes.
However, it is an obvious fact of pre-historical record-keeping times that at some
point multiple tribes of early peoples met and exchanged artefacts and ideas that
each had previously only been developing within the confines of each individual
tribe. While this may not have happened consistently, it must have happened at least
once, and this event defines the origin of multi-cultural society. At this moment in
pre-history is when the origin of the idea of "God" took place. Immediately after this
event, the people involved were left to compete against one another for the "good"
portions of the idea. Instead of all understanding "God" the same way, each person
present saw the vision of this ideal uniquely. All took back with them an enlarged
concept than they arrived with of what constitues an "ideal good" in the form of the
other tribes' shared artefacts and ideas; however no two tribes would use this
expanded knowledge shared between them all in exactly the same way as each other.
From the first multi-tribal exchange of artefacts and ideas, the concept of "God" was
born, and from the resultant competition between the tribes to acquire the "goods" of
the other, opposing tribes, immediately followed from this the birth into reality of
the idea of "Satan."
The moral of the original multi-cultural social exchange between tribes of early
peoples was this: sharing of artefacts and ideas is an inherent good, while
competition over partial artefacts and suppression of any ideas is, thus, an ultimate
evil. Thus, by trading artefacts and sharing ideas, man invented the idea of "God,"
however, immediately following from this, by competing over broken shards using
the tactic of lies, came the naturally equal opposition, the idea of "Satan." If "God" is
"good," and distraction-free imagination, trading of artefacts and sharing of ideas are
good, then "Satan," being "evil," and "evil" being the opposite of "good," is thus a
"God" of war, strife, plague, famine, dismay, rumors, lies and death. If "God" is "good,"
then "Satan" is the equal and opposite "Adversary of God."

Over time economies grew around the earliest exchanges of artefacts and ideas. The
more cultures crossed paths, the more societies began to take root and grow at these
intersection-points. These societies became huge cities (with fortified walls ten feet
thick in one case, or located on twin hills straddling a river in another) on
strategically defensible geography. The residents who lived at these social juncturepoints became less nomadic than those who passed through them as hunters or
herdsmen; they fed themselves by farming plants and taming animals, and
eventually established their cities as a reflection of their priorities for survival,
their class structure being based on a small inner city with greatest fortifications to
barricade themselves in with store-houses for siege-supplies, surrounded by a
metropolis inside a second fortified defensive wall, surrounded in turn by a suburban
rural farm-land where herds-men worked the land to provide food to the urban citydwellers. This was the time when the role of "shaman" or "medicine-man" as "priest"
of the "church" split from the role of "chief" or "elder" as "king" of the
"government." The chief-king organised the city-planning, the class-structure
prioritising and could conscript an army to defend the city. The shaman-priest
organised the gathering into the store-houses of grains and meats, and their redistribution from there first to feed themselves and the king, then to the vassals,
then the serfs, then the slaves from conquered tribes, etc.
Eventually there arose three great economic empire regions:
1) the Vedic Indo-Europeans of southern Asia created the caste system, which
continues ot serve to this day as the basic model for any form of "society" or "social
structure," and is based on variably three to five levels of social "rank" or "value to
society" based on physical fitness, horizontal money-supply, mental apptitude and
vertical money-demand. The class system incorporated the "ruling class" including
the king and priest, the "citizens" who serve some social-good, and the "slaves" who
service the wills of the citizens. The Vedic, Indo-European economy was based on use
of parallel currencies, metal coins and paper currency-notes.
2) the Sumero-Akkadian and later Babylonian empire of the Tigris-Euphrates rivers'
valley, where a somewhat similar social system evolved, however was allowed to build
up a much larger military and eventually conquer much of the middle-east, from the
Taurus mountains in the east to the Meditteranean Sea in the west, because it allowed
the over-extension of credit notes past the due amount of value in metal coins, thus
inflating the perceived value of their economy by militarily conscripting a slave
class of foreigners by foreclosures into indentured servitude. The SumeroBabylonian empire used clay engraved with cuneiform to keep banking records, but
eventually circulated more cylindar-seal stamped credit currency than they could
back with value of saved metals in their banks, and so the Babylonian empire
eventually deteriorated from within and the region, by now, has become a desert.
3) the ancient Egyptian Old-Kingdom was founded when the Scorpion-King, Sargon 1,
unified upper- and lower-Egypt along the Nile river in north-eastern Africa.
Pyramid-shaped tomb building developed as the primary cross-cultural unifier
between the socieites of the northern lower-Nile and the southern upper-Nile. To
construct the massive pyramids erected in Giza and elsewhere throughout ancient
Egypt, a work-force of millions was needed. The Egyptian Pharaohs, "Gods in flesh,"
organised a two-tier class system of northern-Hyksos and southern-Nubian workers
by paying them both in gold coins. Eventually, the project would near completion,
and by then the ruling potentate of the era would have tipped the pay-scale to favour
the architects more than the laborers, such that one designer might make the same
amount of gold as ten builders. This imbalance stagnated Egypt and ushered in a

millennia of decadent luxury there, finally ending only by a cross-cultural invasion
from Mediterranean Rome.
I mention these as being defined by their forms of economic trade, because these
empires all pre-existed the concept of there being only ONE "God." These empires
were all pantheists, who believed in many Gods, one guarding over and guiding each
and every thing in natural reality, and though they lasted for nearly 6,000 years
their ways of life are forgotten and mysterious now to the minds of modern monotheists. These empires provided material "Goods" in exchange for their citizens'
participation in the city-state's society. Thus, their "Good" is defined as material in
natural, while the "Good" of monotheist societies has been to seek the ideal good of an
inspired mind. This idealism brings into being the social juxtaposition between the
roles of the chief-priest and the king. If one is "good," the other may be "evil." Thus,
the separation of church and state in monotheist societies is as alike oil and water as
"God" and "Satan."
Monotheism, though some modern monotheists might be shocked to discover such,
did not begin as worship of the universal ego as the one-true-God based on its being a
constantly present idea shared in everyone's mind. It began when Abraham (also
called Endubsar or ImHotep) rejected the remainder of all Gods in the existing
pantheon shared among the three earliest empries (of s.Asia, the m.East, and
n.Africa), and chose to follow only one from among them all, whom he decided he
would choose for himself. Thus, the concept of monotheism as the "one God" came
into use following it being distinctively divided from the remainder of a pantheon of
other, equal "Gods." Abraham called his "one God only" concept "Elohim," meaning
"my God," and chose to call his "one God" the "king" ("havdhnya" or "ahdvnhay"
derived into "adonai"). Eventually, pantheons of infinite Gods followed suit to this
sage and began to narrow their numbers of deities to smaller sums, mostly to seven,
to twelve, to three or to some such combination.
The ironic fact of monotheism's "one God" idea being an invention of only one wise
individual escapes the minds of the modern follower of monotheist religion who fully
believes that the "one true God" is the "universal" (for which the latin word is
"catholic") "All" (or "mind of the cosmos"). To the modern monotheist there can be no
doubt, no question at all, that there is a universal conscious-mind, because they
believe it to be speaking to them in their own minds when they are inspired. That is
the modern definition for the monotheist concept of "God": an inspired mind-state.
"Allah" is only a derivation of the word "Elohim" and "Jah" only a corruption of
"YHVH" the vowels of "Adonai." To the modern monotheist, "God" simply IS the "mind
of the universe." No further doubts or questions are possible for them.
If "God" is the "conscious ego" or "brain" of the "universe," then that would mean
"Satan," God's opposite, would be the "subconscious id" or "heart" of "reality." And this
is quite accurate to the manner the majority of modern monotheists would define the
current situation. For the past 2000 years or so, this has been the general perception,
and little else has been modified from the original template for the model of building
societies. 2000 years ago Rome arose and fell, and since then much of "western
civilisation's" history has been comprised of applying the earliest formation for citystates to the more nomadic woods-dwelling celts, saxons, gauls, anglish and germanic
Europeans.
Now, in the last 100 years, from 1900 to 2000 ad, we have achieved so much as a
species that it would be a shame to lose, but which we are all too ready to part with
should it serve to help the resolve the fundamental difference in the cosmos between

the "good God" and the "evil Satan." Of course, no sacrifice we could ever offer could
abolish all evil, and so the myths of the major monotheisms of today that are
predicated on the promise of an afterlife are simply puffing smoke and peddling
mirrors. If, indeed, a "heaven" and "hell" exist, it will not be in reality we would find
them, but in a perpetual realm of bliss or suffering that exists in the eternal
recurrance of our final thought before dying. At the moment of death we confront
our own karma, weigh it opposite our mortality, and behold our self-value and worth.
evaluation:
Wishing for "God" - as defined as only one of the pantheon of all possible deities - or
for "Satan" - as defined as the adversary of that one God - to exist does not make them
do so. The "guiding light" of monotheist-dualism is a false flame of intellect projected
over and conflicting against the more blatantly obvious facts of material reality.
Thus, belief in "God" is a delusion, and one so popularised that we all suffer from it,
regardless of it being man-made. However, belief in God without it necessitating the
requisite belief also in his polar duality as "Satan" is still better than any form of
belief that allows into incorporate within itself the idea of "Satan" as a counter-point
result believed necessary due to the idealised existence of their own concept of "God."
There MIGHT be a God, but IF there is one, it does not imply the requisite existence of
"Satan."
Indeed, there are, apparent over-top of mutual consensus material solid reality,
morals of "right" and "wrong." We can all agree on most of these, and can all see it
clearly when someone is making a choice that will prove to be "wrong." However,
this does not logically justify rationalising the absolute extension of these mental
constructs of our minds to the ultimate anthropomorphications of "good" and "evil" as
"God" and "Satan." "Right" and "Wrong" DO exist. "Good" and "Evil" MIGHT exist. "God"
and the "Devil" MAY exist, but if either do, what should it concern us as individuals,
for it would be a cosmic plight beyond our capacity to influence.
In the same sense as denying the proofs for the existence of God given by the
monotheist relgions of today does not invalidate the possible existence of God, neither
does it imply accepting the existence of "Satan" as an only alternative to the
postulates provided by the modern religions. The pondersome existence and
simultaneous non-existence of the idea of God has become the domain of the
churches of religion, and these have become divested of any role whatsoever in
providing any material goods to the community. "Charity" is a "duty" in monotheist
faiths because to them the "will" of each individual must be "bridled" and "tamed" to
do "good" deeds in accordance with their faith's commands. People are not, by nature,
"good." However, the more relgious priests flee from the mental distractions of
necessary survival to embrace the idealism of inspired thinking, the less material
good they manage to accomplish for their community. They embrace "wealth
redistribution" as a form of reclaiming their role protecting grain store-houses in
pre-historic proto-cities. However, chairty is a naturally ideal good, not the forced
redistribution of material goods. You cannot "force someone to be good."
The more energy we focus on suppressing imaginary evils which we create within
ourself by fear of what is beyond our present knowledge, the longer the duration of
time it will take us to achieve any beneficial goals. The more our mind is free and
clear of all these spooks, ghosts, haunts and demons who plague our perceptual plane
with distractions, the better and the sooner we will be able to contribute any true
good to our society of choice.

conclusion:
Although there may or may not be a "one true God" or a "Satan" opposite Him based
on this data set, it should be obvious by now that any form of worship and praise we
offer to either is wholely personal, unique to each individual, and thus, universally
random and arbitrary. If "good" and "evil" are truisms, than rather than "good" facts
proving "God" and / or "Satan" a truly universal axiom, we have instead only "evil"
belief that they both do, regardless of any proof either in favour or to the contrary.
Monotheists have come to believe that "God exists BECAUSE we Believe him to." There
is no arguing logically against someone who refuses to use the rules of logic as their
guide.
Thus, the entire argument of which is a "better" religion between monotheist JudeaoChristian Islam and Illuminist Luciferian-Satanism is moot. There is no "better"
religion between the two, because essentially both of them are false. The fact the
religion of monotheism is false does not disprove the possible existence of an all-good
"one true God." It simply means that the religion of Satanism and the religion of God
that also believes in Satan are both equally evil and to blame for the existence of evil
in the form of the concept of "Satan." Only the religion of God that denies the
existence of "Satan" can be considered "true" to the concept of "God" as the "one true"
and "Most High" ideal good.
Ultimately, your religion is your choice. You are given, by the origin of nature, freewill. No one can choose your path for you, you must choose it for yourself. You are
constantly being faced with two options and being told to choose. The correct choice
can only be made when the mind is calm and clear. Thus, it is best to calm and clear
your mind before making any choice, no matter how mundane or difficult. This
clarity of mind is an inherent "good" that we can offer in thanks of the gift given us
by nature of the right to choose between "right" and "good" or "wrong" and "evil."
prediction:
As we approach the winter-solstice date of the galactic-solar-planetary equatorial
alignment, Dec. 21, 2012, there will be an upsurgeance in research on the topic of
"illuminsm" and the philosophy of "illuminati Luciferian-Satanism." Now, my
readers, you will know how to answer them whenever someone comes to you asking
questions about this topic.
topic: Illuminism 101B
title:!What is Illuminist Luciferian-Satanism?
author: Jonathan Barlow Gee
organisation: the Pythagorean Order of Death (POD)
location: Tallahassee, Florida, USA
date: 4-26-2012
synopsis:
Because there is no "morality" in reality, though it exists in a higher plane, so to
speak, of our mental projections that we super-impose invisibly over consensus
reality, there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong," aside from as subjective
variables symbolising a uselessly random system with no basis in facts. Because there
are no "right" or "wrong" in reality, only in the morality of our shared mental realm,
one could postulate that "good" is the mental realm, while "evil" is reality itself, and
continue this line of justification for psychosis to rationalise the existence of both

"God" and "Satan," or even only "God" as the supreme being above all the lower levels,
and thus explain the existence of "morality" as an "ideal" in itself. One could further
argue a system of levels that alternates between real and ideal, such that evil is
reality, good is idealism, Satan is false, yet God true. One can argue this system can
"wrap around" so that God can influence reality directly, but reality cannot change
the will of God. This system is "good" insofar as it is logically convincing to our moral
minds. However, is it true at all? If it is not, then there MIGHT be NO God, and thus all
religions, both of "good" and in favour of the anti-thesis of that popular consensus
concept, and thus for "evil," MIGHT be equally futile and false.
introduction:
Is it "better" to bring peace, or to make war? This all depends on the pre-existing
condition. If war pre-exists peace, it is better to make peace. If peace precedes war, it
is worse to bring war. However, in reality, there is peace in one place and war in
another, such that when one war in one place ends and they have peace there, then
another war starts in another place that had been at peace before. There is,
somewhere, always war. The concept, tried twice, of a "world-wide war" - where the
more technologically developed nations carpet-bomb and conquer their poorer
neighbors, !where whichever side uses its resources fastest is defeated,!and which
end with only the conquered half of all profiteers and killers being charged with
war-crimes - has failed to end this viscious cycle of violence, which is moreover
apparently inherent in all species on this planet, not only our own. If our species
were wiped out, others would evolve to achieve what we have, and it is more than a
little likely they would also succumb to the emotional temptation to use their
technologies as weapons and make war. If the moral truism "an eye for an eye leaves
the whole world blind" were true, then sooner or later this planet we live on now
WILL be totally destroyed in a war.
As discussed in section A, the law of binary dualism implies the equality of
quadrupled options due to the possibility for over-lap and thus imbalance implied
between the extreme opposites. Just as we can say that only 1/4th of all possible
options in such a system is truly "good," without any impurity due to admixture with
its opposite, so too can we say that only 1/4th of all options that exist in such a system
would be truly "evil." There would be 1/2 of the total equation that would constitute
the imbalanced conditions of reality, where in some places there is "more good than
evil," and elsewhere "more evil than good." Just as "ideal good" cannot exist in
relationship to "real evil," neither is "ideal evil," in its fullest extreme, existent
anywhere in reality. A "real good," or "service," is an economic commodity, while the
"ideal good" would be "God" as the "Most High good," who could not be commodified or
expressed in reality. Insofar as economics and money are the "root of all evil," and
they exist in reality, and insofar as reality is less than ideal, as we can imagine a
"better" world for ourselves, reality in general is evil, while the ideal of "God" alone
is an "ideal good," and "Satan" alone the opposite in being an "ideal evil."
The problem with any binar-based system is that, no matter how many levels one
multiplies it to, it will remain binarily divisible, and will always break even, so to
speak, by providing any new level with an equal and opposite component; if any vote
were taken in such a binary system, it would always tie, and thus, no change would
be able to occur. Because the system remains "balanced," any sudden "imbalance" in
one location must be immediately corrected by a "re-balancing" toward that location
by the entire surrounding area. Such a model as the binary-based system is
argueably an ideal or not, and argueably real or not. In truth, however, in either
case, it should not be held to exist in a vaccum apart from any other possible systems.

Systems such as, for example, the odd-numbered system do allow for "growth" and
"expansion" and, when morality is super-imposed onto the changes thus caused,
these changes can be considered "good" or "evil" progress in either the "right" or
"wrong" direction, etc. In a binary-based system, we do not see the possibility for
exponential growth, only arithmetic, as each new addition is coupled, but this
coupling does not in itself produce any new addition, as we see to be the case in oddnumbered trinary dialectics, where the merger of "thesis" and "anti-thesis" yields a
new "synthesis," which then serves to reproduce as "thesis" by pairing with its polar
opposite as an "anti-thesis," etc. ad infinitum. The difference between a "binary" and
an "odd-numbered" system is that in a binary system, any change rebalances to a
new level, while in an odd-numbered system, balance is never attained, stasis is
impossible, and change constantly occurs instead. Both exist in reality, thus neither
can be likened to the ideal "good" of "God" nor "evil" of "Satan," which can exist only
beyond reality as ideals in the mind.
In reality, that is, material, solid reality, no ideals exist unless we make them exist by
constructing symbols of them using existing material objects in solid reality. This is
the essence of "idolism," which would mean the "bringing down" into reality of ideals
using symbolic material objects to represent the ineffable and unattainable ideal
itself. Money, for example, is a symbol of value, as opposed to being the ideal of
"Value" in itself. Thus, in reality, we find there exist BOTH binary or even-numbered
AND dialectic or odd-numbered systems, thus proving neither is, itself, at all "ideal."
However, just as symbols can exist, and be used as moral truisms to justify arguing
the existence of the ideal they represent, so too are both binary and dialectic systems
used in arguments to prove the final truth about "good" and "evil," even though, in
reality, there can be no final proof of any ideal.
definitions:
If we can say that no ideal can exist in reality, but that any material object can be
used to symbolise any ideal, we might come to believe that objects, when used as
symbols of non-real ideals, are elevated in meaning to the status of a more idealised
form of "meta-object," imbued with symbolic meaning refering to the non-real ideal
it represents to us. Insofar as "belief" or "imagination" in the mind may imbue any
object with symbolic meaning refering to any ideal, this theory itself might be used
as a justification in reality for the existence and usefulness in symbolising an ideal.
However, neither this argument of using both binary and dialectic systems to
symbolise the ideals of "right" and "wrong" nor the use of symbols as "meta-objects"
to idolize ideals, is a material reality in itself, merely another mental projective form
of ideal. If no ideal can exist in reality, no amount of justification will prove the
opposite. Morality, logic and the entire ideal mental realm are non-real and do not
exist in material, solid reality. No symbol can dis-prove this.
Thus, we can define "symbols" as real objects we imbue with additional meaning to
rationally and morally justify our mental belief in imaginary ideals such as "right"
and "wrong." We can define reality, additionally, as being corrupted by the influence
of BOTH good AND evil, and thus say only in the ideal realm of the mind do the
ultimate extent of this binary idea truly exist as "God" and "Satan," but that, no matter
how we symbolise these in reality using material objects, neither can be "brought
down" and "made real" by simply imbuing any object with this symbolic meaning.
Because no amount of moral reasoning can cause "good" or "evil" to exist in reality,
no argument is possible that can either prove or disprove the moral use of symbols
nor the existence of any mental ideal. The fact ideals cannot exist, and the fact

symbols used for them are all arbitrary, are often ignored by many of our species.
Instead, we embrace the use of symobls in place of ideals themselves, and we believe
in the existence of ideals, and that our belief in their existence is what causes them to
have that existence. We believe in the real existence of our mental realm, our mind.
However, this does not make our mental realm, the ideals of our minds, real existing
objects in material reality.
methodology:
By detaching the concepts of real objects that are used as idealised symbols by being
imbued with additional meaning from our mental realms, and the ideals these
symbols are used to represent, from the solid, material reality of objects, we can
differentiate between the object in reality itself and the subjective meaning we
super-impose on it with our mind. This method determines the difference between
what is "true" in reality and what is only a "higher truth" in our minds, to
distinguish between which exists in reality and which is merely a hallucination
inside our imaginations. Thus, because "good" and "evil" are ideals that exist only in
the mind, they do not exist as any real object in material reality.
Because symbols of ideals are used as "meta-objects" by our species to give additional
meaning to regular solid objects, the useo f symbols collectively can be considered by
its micro-application in the form of written language. A book of history is a symbol
of history, but the past before they were born cannot be truly known by anyone. A
symbol of the past can only influence one's mind to make different choices than they
would by instinct, however it cannot prove the existence, in the present, of any truth
about past events, which now no longer exist. No historical artefact can truly
convince the morally reasoning mind the universe did not simply pop into existence
the moment they were born into it. If nothing we imagine can be considered "true"
in the sense of being a solid material object in itself, then objects we create or alter
using written language to symbolise the ideals of our minds, no matter how many
other minds they may influence in the future, are arbitrary and lies.
If we look at the history of written history itself, we can find through the study of
changeing symbols, that is, the use of different solid, material objects over time to
signify the same, single unchangeing ideal, and can prove the futility of believing
one needs to do so to learn and improve their own instinctive ideals. The arbitrary
assignation of symbolic meaning to any material object causes that object to decay at
an increased rate, and eventually to be destroyed prior to our belief in its usefulness
ceasing. Even this, the longevity of our belief in a symbol beyond the very ability of
the object we use for it to exist, is taken as morally logical argument to justify the
existence of ideals as a "higher reality." Of course, our destruction of one material
object as a natural resource after another, ad infinitum, is excused by this argument
as being "morally logical," but the fact this arugment itself is ex post facto and
imaginary itself is ignored.
history:
Logic and Morality are the twin children of written language. If written language
had never been invented, neither morality nor logic would exist. If all capacity for
written language were destroyed, morality and logic would cease also. Morality, as a
justification for making an argument, and logic, the manner of constructing the
argument to successfully convince someone else's mind, can only exist so long as
written language exists, because written language, as a symbolic system for making
an argument, can be made to exist as a material, solid object in reality. However, only

within written language do the ideals of morality and logic exist anywhere in reality.
Logic and morality are symbols of an ideal good and a necessary evil used to acquire
it, but if all written language were erased, neither would persist.
Some state communication using verbal language is the invention of our species, and
none others use symbolic language verbally to communicate as we do. This is
obviously wrong, since every animal species on this planet makes some form of
verbal noise to communicate with its own kind, and even other species also. Yet, the
invention of symbolic language to communicate can be proven unique to our species
as an invention in its form as writing, an invention we owe entirely to our thumb's
use in creating it, and not to our species' ability to use language to speak.
A written record of events in our species existence signifies the entirety of our
concept of history, as it unfolded here on our planet prior to our personal birth. No
other species perserves their history in this way. This method is unique to humans
and is how we measure the difference between our species and all others. The written
record of our species' history is what we base our belief as a species for morality and
logic upon. Without the written record of history, no logical argument would exist for
morality, and we would need to, if it had proved useful, re-invent the record as proof
for the existence of logical morality. Outside of writings, we can find no other proof
in reality for the existence of either logic or morality.
The most basic principles of logic are identity and cause and effect: "A = A" and "if A
therefore B." The most basic principles of morality are ideals that are only
symbolically expressed in logical terms. Thus "good = good," and thus "if good exists
thus also there must be such a thing as evil." In short, the written letters of our
symbolic language themselves comprise the format of logic, and thus logic is used to
argue the existence of binary morality. Because written language exists as a series of
alphabetic letters, logic is premised on language, and thus morality on logic.
We cannot say now that "written language does not exist as a material object in solid
reality," nor that "history itself does not exist as the records of all our species' written
languages." Therefore, symbolically within these texts, "morality" and "logic" can be
argued to exist in reality; even though there is no proof for either outside these
books. However, it cannot be argued that, because writing exists, the subjects of the
writing must necessarily also exist. This is because writing is only symbolic of
morality and logic, and thus, though useful in expressing our species' imaginary
ideals, does not prove they exist as material objects in solid reality. The book about
"Moby Dick" itself is not a real "white whale." No amount of logical morality can
prove the existence as a material object of "good" or "evil," because in truth neither
exist in reality, as both are purely mental ideals.
The argument is often made that, by containing good and evil symbollically as
records of history, the material objects of books about history are, themselves, a
"meta-object" form of "better" reality that symbolises mental idealisms. Again, any
object used as a symbol will be rendered extinct before the expiration of its
usefullness. Gold coins can be hoarded away from their use in the free-market as
money; paper bills will expire before their users can reclaim their holdings in
metals; the idea of "God" will die out long before the religions of monotheism are
prepared to let Him go. By valuing any object as a symbol, it depletes that object's
supplies to immitate in reality the scarcity of non-real ideals. By using any object as
a symbol, we use its supplies in material reality up faster. Thus, the value of books as
a symbol of idealism is increased along with their scarcity. If there were only one
book, it would be considered most ideal. Such is, in modern times, the "Bible,"

comprised of the religious history of Judeao-Christian Islam.
It is also often argued over whether this one book, the "Bible" of mono-theist
religions, is an authentic symbol of idealism or not. It is said by some, "the bible is
inaccurate in some regards, therefore less ideal as a symbol of history," while it is
said by others, "the bible is the literal word of God." Neither of these arguments
amounts to any proof either way, because the entire argument itself is moot. Arguing
over the amount of truth in the Bible is like arguing over the exact amount of wheat
content in a loaf of bread. The argument is irrelevant to the object's use itself. The
use of a loaf of a bread to the stomach is equal to the use of any book to the mind,
which consumes and lives off the ideals of other people just as the stomach must
consume a variety of foods to survive. If the stomach doesn't eat, the body dies, and if
the mind does not think, it cannot be said to be "alive" in the sense of active deeds
either. For every hundred thoughts the average mind consumes from outside itself, it
might produce one original idea of its own. Thus, the value of the one-book, the
monotheist "Bible, as a symbol of all human history assembled as a series of logical
consequences proving the existence in reality of the moral ideal, is due to its length.
Because it's a long book, it inspires more original thoughts on average than most
other works of equal percentage fiction.
The existence of the "Bible" as the history of our species comprised to logically prove
the existence of morality as a final proof for the existence of "God" is irrelevant to
whether or not "God" exists, and thus is an arbitrary symbol for human belief alone,
and in itself can serve as evidence for the "higher truth" of nothing. The mental
realm elevates itself symbolically to the level of an ideal "God," but this does not mean
the mind itself is "God." In reality, there is no proof even for the existence of the
mind, let alone for its belief in "God" being able to bring "God" into being in reality.
evaluation:
As long as the Bible, as an artefact of our species' record of history, exists as a solid
object in material reality, people will continue to cling to it to logically justify their
belief in the idealism of the mental realm for proof of a non-existent God. Because the
argument of the futility of this is, itself a moot argument, the efficacy of the Bible as
proof of God will continue, while the logic to disprove the reality of morality will yet
elude those who apply logic to disprove the existence of morality. Logic depends on
morality, and so logic cannot be used to relieve itself of needing morality. Morality is
the ideal preceding it, and logic is then aimed to prove and make morality real.
The concept of "illuminist Luciferian-Satanism" is only as useful as a logical disproof
for the "Bible's" description of the monothesit "God" because of the limitations to the
definiton of "God" implied by its being a single material object. Beyond this,
"illuminst Luciferian-Satanism" would only replace one monotheist religion
worshipping "God" as "good" with the opposite religion worshipping "Satan" as "evil,"
but would not be able to free the mind from belief in the un-real "existence" of the
monotheist ideal of "God" itself. Thus, "Illuminst Luciferian-Satanism" is not an
elevation in levels from the real toward the ideal, but a decent from the levels of
reality into those of an equally imaginary and false ideal. Both of these paths lead
knowingly to insanity. In short, because "Illuminst Luciferian-Satanism" is no
different from "Judeao-Christian Islam" insofar as both are monotheisms, then
"Judeao-Christian Islam" is no better nor more truly ideal than "Illuminist
Luciferian-Satanism." To see this fact is the origin for seeking freedom from all
belief. Ultimately, all beliefs, not only in EITHER "good" OR "evil," are false. The sky is
NOT "blue," even if we Believe it IS. "Blue" is only a word our species invented to

describe the concept of a colour that pre-existed us. It is meaningless to say that
which preceded is like that which followed. It would, logically, be like saying "if B
therefore A."
People will continue to believe in God long after they reach the logical conclusion
one cannot really exist. Because logic is an arbitrary proof for morality, they will
continue to use logic as a proof for the untrue "existence" of God. Again, this is
identical to saying "because we say the sky is blue, it is blue," when in truth the sky
is thin, clear water. And, again, the more we persist in using logic to justify morality,
using the "Bible" as proof for God, and using books as proof for the past, we will only
deplete the existence of logic, the efficacy of the "Bible," and all other books. This is a
very dangerous road to pursue for us as a species, but then again, we are all doomed
to die anyway, so who cares?
conclusion:
Reality is malleable, but ideals are not. Ideals, by necessity, must outlast all symbols
used for them. This is a natural fact, and not an axiomatic law we impose onto nature
by our logic. There is no "law" in nature, and that is why we, and all other species on
this planet, are permitted to wage war and to profit by killing. We would very much
like to impose a "natural" law to prevent this behaviour, but it is not possible in true
reality to do so. We can no more change natural fact than we alter an ideal. Our mind
is detached from reality like oil on water, but as lovely the patterns of our mind may
be, they are nothing beside the depths of the realm of reality below. No "law" we
imagine can change reality.
Because we exist in reality, though our minds do not, we think we are able to
superimpose our minds onto reality by creating symbolic "meta-objects" from solid
materials. This is a lie. Because we see symbols of ideals, we believe ideals exist as
proven material objects in reality. This is a lie. Because we use and believe in
symbols, we think ideals are real. This is a lie. All logic and morality are lies, but we
will never stop believing in them until our species is extinct. There is no more point
in valueing freedom from belief than there is in valueing death over life. Belief is a
fact of the mental realm just as solid objects are facts in material reality. We cannot
separate the mind and its beliefs. To try is suicide. Beliefs are the organs of the mind,
just as are the organs in our bodies necessary to keep our brains alive. The mind
cannot live without belief anymore than the brain could live without the body. Just
as we consume food to process through our stomach and feed our bodily organs, we
consume ideas with the mind to digest in our brains and feed the beliefs in our
mental realm. The mind can be compared to the body, but not the other way around,
because the body exists in material reality, whereas the mind does not. You can
change a belief in specific, but you cannot remove one organ and replace it with
another that is a different kind. You can believe in both "good" and "evil," but you
cannot sacrifice one heart to make room for a second stomach.
prediction:
Death comes to all of us, and how we live our lives does not matter if history is
arbitrary and beyond our control. So long as we continue to be alive however, we will
cling to beliefs and lies of logical morality to falsey prove "God." No amount of logic
can disprove the use of logic, nor can gasoline extinguish a fire. Thus, we will keep
believing because our species is weak-minded and soft, our beliefs malleable and
inconstant, and ignore the fact of reality that our ideals can never possibly exist in
reality. We will believe as a species until we are extinct, and never succeed in

proving our beliefs are true. That is the fate of our species. There is no hope for us to
progress beyond binary morality, even though it is ultimately useless to us, and will
only bring about our downfall.
topic: Illuminism 101C
title: Illuminist Luciferian-Satanism and You.
author: Jonathan Barlow Gee
organisation: the Pythagorean Order of Death (POD)
location: Tallahassee, Florida, USA
date: 4-27-2012
synopsis:
Why is it widely believed in modern mono-theism that "Satan" is to "Lucifer" what
"God" is to "Christ"? It is due to the lie of "Illuminism" fostering the false assertion
that "Christ" is the "Son" of "God" and thus that the "Anti-Christ" or "Lucifer" is
likewise the "Son" of "Satan." Nevermind that, in the myths, "Lucifer" preceded
"Satan" as a fallen-angel, and that these two were merely different names for one
and the same conceptual entity. The conventional colloquial consensus today is that
"Anti-Christ" is to "Satan" as "Christ" is to "God," and thus just as "Chirst" is the "Son of
God," "Anti-Christ" must also be the "Son of Satan," and that "Lucifer" is the "AntiChrist." Lucifer was once the "Angel of Light" and chief among the host of God's
angels. He was said to have rebelled against God on a number of occassions and thus
to have been "cast down" from heaven into, ultimately, the role of "Satan" as the
"Anti-God," ruler of "hell" as "God" rules over "heaven." However by now, the myth
has been distorted such that "Lucifer" would be seen, not as the predecessor, but as
the heir of "Satan."
Of course, as proven in the previous sections of this essay series, no "morality"
defining any of these characters can cause them to exist in reality, which they do
not, nor ever will, nor even can. Nonetheless, this moot argument remains a
distraction in the minds of most monotheists of our species because they are aware,
though only indirectly, of the cognitive dissonant form of their belief. As the
concept of the "monotheist God" begins to shift toward seeking new, real proofs it and
away from the blind belief of the past, the mythological logic defining the
"monotheist God" will decompose and decohere from within, until the definitions of
"God" and "Satan" become interchangeble, and both are finally accepted as false. The
realisation that "God is dead," or rather, a false idea, can be apprehended by any
individual at any time, but will never be realised by our whole species at once. We
will be extinct long before the beliefs we hold now will cease being argued about by
our ancestor species.
This section of this essay series will address the question of "why illuminism has
grown within monotheism as a counter-movement to its religions," as well as "why
illuminism uses the tactic of distorting the logic of monotheist myths," particularly,
as will be further elaborately shown, because there was no "Christ" as a "Son" of
"God," not only because there is no "God," but because the myth of the "Messiah" or
"Christ" being born as Jesus of Nazareth is fiction. The concept of calling "Satan" the
father of "Lucifer" is to perpetuate the myth of "Satan's" inevitable redemption and
return to his original place in "heaven" as the "Angel of Light." The reason for
distorting the monotheist myth towards this concept of "Satan" as the "father" of
"Lucifer" is also meant to address the concept that "evil" is "life backwards," and to
address the concept that what we see as "good" would be "evil," and what we see as
"evil" would be "good," from the point of view of "Satan," if "Satan" were looking at

things from the opposite point of view as "God," and "God's" point of view on our life
was from the "Most High" vantage-point of "heaven," while "Satan's" was the lowest
shadow in the valley of "hell."
introduction:
What is "Good," in general? "Good" is something we aspire to, but will never fully
reach, apprehend and possess. "Good" is, like any other idea, invisible, intangible and
able to influence the minds of people toward belief in it as ideal. As we have sought to
demonstrate in the preceding essay sections of this lecture series, "good" and "evil"
are relative only in the mental realm, and do not exist as solid objects in material
reality. Therefore, what is the "good" of perpetuating the myths that describe them as
such? If our beliefs are based on myths about morality, as they, for most modern
monotheists, undoubtedly exclusively are, then freedom from them would amount to a
mental death, the erasure of all ideas we have ingested into our minds over our entire
lives. Thus, if the keeping of moral myths itself is immoral, but freedom from belief
in their morality brings about a form of mental suicide, can we separate the morality
from the myth, discarding the myth but keeping the morality intact, in such a way as
to avoid complete mental chaos? Logically, this should be the next step for our (or
any subsequent) species: to disentangle the usefullness of our species "logical
morality" from the "monotheist myths" in which it is currently, exclusively, housed.
The "religion" that should be born from "monotheism" as "monotheism" was from
"pantheism" should espouse the morality of reality, and seek proofs for morality in
reality, avoiding the short-cut of believing in it as an ideal that can exist only in the
mind.
If there is no such thing as "good" or "evil," or "right" and "wrong," nothing we can
imagine would be impossible to accomplish, nor nothing we could achieve be
permanent, and eventually, regardless of our personal quest for some proof for our
belief as a species in morality being real, our species will die in a war and our
morality be reduced to its final form: ashes on the pyre of time. Ultimately, even if
"good" and "evil" do exist as ideas in our species' minds now, once our species has
fought over their definitions until we have gone extinct in wars within ourselves,
they will die too. In the end, our species is worthless and far too distracted from
achieving any more of its full potential by the argument over the existence of nonexistent "idealism" and false-truths of "morality." This argument will, eventually, kill
us all. That fact is built into the narrative of the monotheist myths in the form of the
self-fulfilling prophecy of "Revelations" that describes the "end times" of our species
as occuring due to a "war in heaven" between "Jesus Chirst" and "Lucifer" the "AntiChrist" over the very topic we're discussing now, the issue of "good" and "evil."
What "good" are the monotheist myths at proving the reality of morality? None;
therefore, they are, themselves, useless, since that is their sole and only goal as a
tool. What "good" can be learned from their study, then? None as well, considering
they only confuse the mind in the present which would be better guided by its moral
instincts. So, then, most importantly, if no "good" comes from the monotheist myths,
why do they continue to exist, why do people continue to study them and believe in
their good? It is because of how ancient true "illuminism" really is. The "new
testament gospels" describing "Jesus Christ" are "illuminist" scriptures inserted
between the partial truths of the "old testament torah" histories and the more or less
total truth of the "Quran" as a moral code-book. The goal of the "Christian" scriptures
was to distill from the Judeaic "Old Testament" scriptures the moral code of the
monotheist God into a short-format, which could then be distilled further until it
evaporates and is replaced by the "scientific method."

The goal of "illuminism" is to replace monotheist religion with science. That much is
the agreed upon definition for "illuminism," however the antiquity of age such a
broadly scoped definiton can encompass is rarely fully examined, and all too often
entirely overlooked in the study of "illuminsm." Assuming the "enlightenment"-era
resurgeance of "neo-Platonism" and the invention of the "scientific method" during
the "age of reason" were the origin for modern "illuminism" is fine; however we
must not forget that prior to this, "illuminism" had been thought dead since the last
prior resurgeance of interest in "Platonism," immediately prior to the era of the
"New Testament," when the ideas of Plato were originally being dispersed among the
various peoples of the Roman Imperial collonies. The result of "Platonic philosophy"
on "mono-theism" then was called "Gnosticism" in the Meditteranean regions of
northern Africa and the middle-east. "Gnosticism" was the "study of knowledge," just
as "philosophy" was the "pursuit of wisdom." Insofar as Gnostics considered "wisdom"
an unattainable ideal, hidden in our mind behind a veil of our knowledge, they
sought to prove the reality of knowledge as a means of acquiring the ideal of wisdom.
To monotheism, such thought is heresy. To "illuminism," the fact monotheist religion
finds "philosophy" and "Gnosticism" antithetical to faith and belief is proof for their
own origins at the now eroding core of monotheism itself. The fact monotheist
religions define faith and belief as "good" and science and knowledge as "evil" is the
sickness of "illuminism" within monotheist religion. Of course, no "good" God would
curse the quest for knowledge, which is why it was necessary for "illuminism" to be
created by pantheism within the monotheist religion to do that job instead.
terminology:
Judeao-Christian Islam IS illuminist Luciferian-Satanism. They are two sides of one
coin. Likewise, science and logic are one side of the same coin as the other side is
belief in morality. Because "Judeao-Christian Islam" breaks down into the dialectic of
the "Trinity" of "father" God, "son" Christ, and "holy ghost" Prophet, each of these
components has its mirror opposite on the same level in the form of the "father"
Satan, the "son" Lucifer" and the "holy ghost" of "illuminism" in the opposite form of
monotheist religion, which seeks to find (or to cause) proof in reality for the
existence of "evil" rather than of "good." Because Judeaism created "God" and "Satan,"
Christianity created "Christ" and "Lucifer," and Islam created "the Prophet (PBUH)"
and "illuminism," they are both "monotheisms," even though opposite in their
moralities; both "God" and "Satan" are just opposite sides of the same concept monotheism.
"Gnostic" monotheism created the "scientific method" as "Platonic philosophy,"
however immediately following this pantheist infiltrators of monotheist religion at
the time implemented the "illuminist" counter-trend as a means of suprpessing this
methodology and its goals. "Luciferian-Satanism" was invented to discredit
gnosticism and science as being the very trend of "illuminism" which was, within
monotheism, designed to stamp them out. Thus, in the modern mind, the concepts of
"scientific method" and "logical reasoning" are believed to be associated with
"illuminism" and with the goal of proving the existence of "Satan" and non-existence
of "God" in natural reality.
Therefore, "Gnosticism" and "Platonic philosophy," even if identified as "illuminsm,"
are truer forms of "monotheism" than the form of "illuminism" originally designed
to suppress and thwart them by pantheist infiltrators. Who, then, were these
infiltrators into monotheist religion who still held the old beliefs of pantheism from
ancient times? What was their fiendish scheme to slander scientific method and

monotheist gnostic philosophy as "illuminism"? The answer is quite simple, though
may shock many modern mono-theists today: it was the Roman Emperors who
invented "Christianity" to counter the spread of the "Gnostic" heresy. This fact,
though obvious, is yet counter-intuitive today only because so many people today are
believers in the "Christian New Testament Gospels" as being part of the "Bible" and
thus the "true word of God." They are not. Everyone, be they Eastern-Orthodox,
Catholic or Protestant, who calls themselves a "Christian" nowadays is a fool being
mis-led by a false fiction. There never was any "Christ" born because the concept of
"Christ" is a fictional concept based on the idea of the "son" of "God," which is, in
turn, completely antithetical to the definition of "God" in monotheism as the sole and
only deity above all that which is, was and ever will be. This concept had become so
unpopular at the time of the writings of the "New Testament Gospels," that the Roman
Emperors wrote these "Gospels" to prove the myth was an Absolute Truth in material
factual reality. The "Gospels" are a lie, and the events described in them did not
actually occur in at all the way described in them.
While "Judeaism" proved the existence as ideal, but the limitation to the mental realm,
of the monotheist "God," and "Islam" proved the usefullness of extracting only the
moral axioms from within the "Old Testament's" many mythical truisms,
"Christianity" has proved to be the downfall of all monotheist religion as such. It
demands we question the definition of and what constitutes a modern "religion,"
because if one "religion" can be predicated on a false myth, then any church can
arise anywhere at any time around any myth, regardless of its moral "good" or its
percentage of fiction, and be considered an authentically "monotheist" religion as
well. Thus, "Christianity" IS "Luciferian-Satanism," and both combined are
"illuminism," or the erosion of monotheism from within.
methodology:
Ignoring the emotional temptation to cling to symbols of morality as justification for
our belief in its existence and as cause for obeying its codes in our behaviours cannot
itself cause the non-existence or reversal of our previously held moral beliefs. Thus,
science, by the method of questioning, can not replace the monotheist concept of
God, but only expand upon its definition by empowering Him as the one being asked.
"Illuminism" on the other hand is predicated on disproving the existence of the
monotheist concept of "God" by any terms, and by any means, including use of
science and of monotheist myths themselves. "Illuminism" as anti-thesis of
"Gnosticism" combines science and myth to disprove monotheism, while "Gnosticism"
uses science and myth to prove it. The goal of Gnosticism was culminated in the
Quran, distilling only the most important moral truisms from within the previous
monotheist scriptures, and thus the Quran became the basic text for the original
practitioners of scientific method in the early Muslim Ottoman Empire. The goal of
the Quran and the scientific method was to prommote free thought and for people to
question their belief in the false monotheism of Christianity. The Gnostics hoped
that, by inventing the new religion of Islam, they would be able to turn the blind
followers away from being misled by the lies of pantheistic Christianity. "Gnosticism"
became "Islam." In the Ottoman Empire and Turkish Spain science was practised
openly during the entire Medieval period during which the Roman Pope of
Christendom commited the atrocities of the Crusades and Inquisition, while ruling
over the European feudal system of royals, vassals and their serfs. As stated before,
the "Dark Ages" stagnated Europe in their backwards rejection of modern science,
forcing the nomadic tribespeople of pre-Roman Europe into the Indo-European
caste-system of pre-Hindu Vedic India. Such was the history of "western civilisation"
in Christian Europe between the advent of their "monotheist" religion's invention

until the early years of the Italian Rennaissance some 1600 years later. In truth, the
"monotheist" religion of Christianity is nothing but a glove into which the pantheist
Roman Empire was perfectly fit alike a hand.
The concept of "Christ" was based loosely on the deity "Krishna" of the Hindu and
Veda. "Krishna" was the "oversoul" or "uber-mensch," the "super-ego" or "Most High
consciousness." In the Vedic pantheist myths, "Krishna" is described as a dancing,
though unborn infant, asleep in a meta-versal cosmic womb, and our entire cosmos,
all we can see and know about material reality, is nothing but his dream. In Hindu
myths, "Krishna" became an intermediary between "Shiva" the destroyer and
"Vishnu" the creator. In Buddhism, "Krishna" was the avatar of Buddha, and Buddha
the atavism of Krishna, just as each subsequent Dalai Lama has been an atavism of
Buddha. When the indo-Europeans immigrated across the Caucus mountains from
western Asia into eastern Europe, they brought with them "Krishna" among their
pantheon of many other Gods. When Rome invaded and subjugated these peoples of
Europe, the pantheon of Rome identified the Indo-European pantheist demi-deity
"Krist" with the concept of the Hebrew "Messiah," or "messenger of God," called in
Greek "Christ," the world-saviour. Because the Roman Empire encountered far more
resistence from the Hebrew Judeans in the middle-eastern collonies than from the
pantheists of Europe, they thought it wise to take the character attributes of
"Krishna" or "Krist" and assign them all to one Hebrew person whom they would
then call the "Messiah" or "Christ," and then kill, and thus dispell the myth of a
coming "world saviour" who could overthrow the Roman Empire. And so they wrote
the "New Testament Gospels."
history:
The concept of the "devil" predates the myth of "Satan" as a fallen angel. In the oldest
original Torah myths, there is no description of "Satan" entering into the "serpent of
Eden," of "Satan" testing Job, of "Satan" being a "fallen angel," etc. Instead, each of
these roles was played by a different angel of God. Firstly, the "serpent of Eden" is
described as being the angel Raziel. Secondly, the "adversary" who tests Job is Azriel.
Thirdly, the "fallen angel" of Hebrew Pass-over is celebrated as the scape-goat, whose
name is Samael or Shem-Azza, meaning "the name Azza." All of these were taken,
collectively, to represent one single angel by the New Testament era anti-Gnostic
monotheism pantheist scholars of Rome. They called this anti-God "Satan," and
described him as having once been an "angel of light," named "Lucifer" who
challenged the authority of God, and whom God "cast down" into "hell" and made king
demon. Of course, this myth is entirely contrived by assuming the differently named
angels of the Old Testament Torah are one and the same fallen-angelic entity, rather
than separate angels tasked individually by God. In Gnosticism, "Satan" was called
"Saklas," "Sabaoth" or "Ialdabaoth" which meant "the blind one." They were not
refering to any real living being. They were refering to the early Roman invention
of "Christ" being based on the myths of Horus and Odin, both of whom lost one of
their eyes fighting the serpent of chaos. The Gnostics knew the idea of "Christ" was
false. They spit on the graven idol of the Christian world-saviour, and have often
since the Inquisition resorted to violently replicating the fictional act of the killing
by curcifiction of this fictional Christ. To the Gnostics, "Satan" was a rebel against
"God," and because "Satan" was an invention of Roman pantheists, which they called
"Christ," thus "Christ" was "Satan." It was Christ that was, thus, the rebel against God,
and whose character is often portrayed by Gnostics as an anti-hero. Again, the whole
purpose of inventing the myth of "Christ" and thus the "monotheist" religion of
Christianity was as "illuminism" meant to logically discredit and morally erode
monotheism from within.

The writing of the "New Testament" was meant to end the relgious writings of
monotheism. It failed. Islam proves that the idea of God (somehow!) managed to
survive the fictional death of "Christ," His "son." The galvanised format of Islam in
the short-form of its scripture, the Quran, came as a surprise to and was immediately
seen as a threat by the Roman Christian Papal-Emperors. The Roman Popes of the era
of Muhammad (PBUH) believed themselves the contemporary equivalent of the
ancient Egyptian Pharaohs. They believed they held the keys to heaven and hell, and
that they alone controlled the entire vast of expanse of the former Roman Empire,
which had included Judea and much of the middle-east.
The origin of Islam was seen as an enourmous threat to their consolidation of power,
and thus they launched the "Crusades" to retake the "Holy Lands" from the "hethen"
Muslim Semites. Of course, by attacking the monotheist religion of Islam, Christianity
finally disproved itself as a monotheist religion itself, and lost all remains of its thin
veil over the naked face of Imperial Roman pantheism. However, the Popes,
remaining impervious in their belief of their own immortal authority as
contemporary equivalents of Caesar alike the Egyptian Pharaohs, did not even care
by then. They unleashed wave after wave of children, of nuns, of serfs and of
knighted vassals led (sometimes) by the loyal kings themselves, against the Muslim
Saraccen and Ottoman Turks.
The result was that the followers of Islam were split into two schools, the so-called
"Sevener" or "Shiite" believers, and the "Twelver" or "Sunni" believers. To this day
there remains un-necessary conflict within the last true monotheist religion to
form, Islam, between those who believe in 7 and those who believe in 12 Imams, or
wise teachers who followed the Last Prophet, Muhammad (PBUH). The backlash of the
Crusades causing the split in Islam was that eventually the Catholic Empire of
Christendom split also, and formed the Protestant faith as a form of Gnostic rebellion
against Christianity as a religion of Imperialism. Just as Islam remains at civil war
within itself to this day, Christendom was eventually split into three pieces that all
remain today: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant.!All of these sects are
considered different religions now, and all have adherents all around the world,
numbering in total nearly the entire population of n.Asia and of "western
civlisation" combined. The only equivalent to any form of competing religion besides
the adherents of Judeao-Christian Islam are the Hindi pantheists of India and the
followers of the non-religion philosophy of Buddhism.
Because there are over 7 billion or so people alive on earth right now, and because
according to sruveys by "western civilised" science, at least 90% of everyone alive
believes in the concept of the monotheist God, that means that 6.3 billion people alive
right now believe in God. The rest of the people alive right now are either "agnostic"
- aware of the idea of God but unwilling to accept it as true without any factual proof,
or "atheist" - who are aware of the idea of God and who outright reject the validity of
the concept in any terms.!Becasue only one percent of the ten percent who doubt the
truth of the existence of God are atheists who deny the idea entirely, and because one
percent of ten percent is actually one-tenth of one percent of the total, and because
the total population alive now is around 7 billion, thus only about 1/10 of 1% of 7
billion people are outright atheists. This means that 6.3 billion people believe in God,
that 7 million people are either agnostic or atheist, and that there are only about 700
real atheists.!This might seem like an incredibly small number of people nowadays,
considering there's 7 billion people alive now. 700 people would not even fill an
average sized stadium in modern times. Yet this group grows even smaller when we
subtract from it those atheists who believe in the "ideal good" of "morality"

independently of the existence or non existence of the idea of God. If we are left with
only the number of "atheists" who are also "amoral" or who would be considered
truly "godless" and "evil" people by the rest of humanity, we are left with something
like merely 70 living souls. 70 out of 7 billion human beings are both atheist and
choose to be evil. That's 0.0049% of the total, or literally one evil atheist per every 100
million people both morally good and who believe in God.
These ~70 people who are both atheist and amoral sociopaths have self-selected into
behind the scenes managereal roles in our increasingly globalised society. They
have collected to their cause around the same number of amoral agnostics and
immoral monotheists by professing the "new religion" of "science" to replace
monotheism. We call this group now, the "illuminati," although this name only began
being used for this cult as recently as the enlightenment and dawn of the age of
reason. This form of anti-monotheist non-pantheist atheism is much older than the
name "illuminati" however, and dates at least as far back as the Roman Empire. The
Roman Emperors, self-proclaimed pantheists and monotheists alike, believed
themselves alike the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs, who had believed themselves to be
"living Gods." This contradictory concept defies the principle of God as an ideal-only,
and is the foundation-stone on which Christianity was based. Christianity was
founded to set a precident for the punishment and execution of anyone from the
"gross masses" (the some 99.9% of good agnostics or monotheists) who attempts to
gain social power non-economically, by providing an ideal good in the form of a
non-economic message of morality. Because "Jesus Christ" was "good," he was killed
by those "evil" people who rule the world, and continue to today. Thus, if anyone else
wants to come along nowadays and try to be a "world-saviour," they will meet with
the same fate as any and all "Christs," the fate that is deserved instead by those evil
rulers who would expand their empires by violence, monetary corecion and lies.
Thus, we seem now to be stuck with these ~70 rulers of the world, although this sum is
inconstant in itself, and varies as a percentage of the total population.
As stated, these ~70 "global kings" are all in agreement on the most fundamental
issues, and all in opposition to the vast majority of opinions on them. They do not
believe in God, and they do not subscribe to any moral code. They believe themselves
to be "living Gods," and wish only to expand their authority over distant minds. They
will die unhappy, unsatisfied, and suffer the fate of hell in their final moment's
thoughts. Some of them are intelligent enough to realise this, however not all of
them are, nor do all of those who realise it choose to care about it and repent.
evaluation:
Because the modern "illuminists" have, for 2000 years since their forging "Christian
monotheism," a complete contradiction in terminology, consolidated so much power
to their small, elite cabal, it seems as though they have impugnity to do whatever
they want, including commiting mass-murder and arbitrary torture of individual
enemies. Because these "illuminists" do not believe in the monotheist concept of
"God," but believe instead they themselves are "living Gods," they comprise a false
"pantheon" of modern "anti-Gods," essentially embodying on earth the demonic
royalty of "hell" as a "round table" of plural, equal "Satans." Thus, by their existence,
they prove the theory of "hell on earth" and that "Satan rules earth." However, these
truisms do not prove necessarily universable axioms; the rich elite are not always
evil atheists in all events, even though they are here and now.
Because the rich elite cabal of atheist sociopaths that manage the global
governmental "round tables" and "think tanks" now do not all agree on every issue,

we, the rest of the population of people on this planet, can only hope this tightly knit
elite cabal is susceptible to erosion and decomposition from within due to a form of
"anti-illuminist illuminism" forming among their ranks. We, the majority of moral
monotheists of our species, believe the rich elite's "new world order" to be a house of
cards that can be toppled by the slightest breeze blown through it from within. This
hope, however we may reason it a logical moral axiom, is irrelevant without our
preparing for and around it. If this elite cabal falls, we must have a back-up system
prepared to be implimented instead of it immediately on its collapse. Until we have a
superior alternative option to their "Protocol's" global dictatorship, their plan will
continue to progress, and the doom of our species to creep incrementally closer
everyday.
In material reality, we must remember, there are no such solid objects as factual
evidence to prove the existence of "right" or "wrong." Therefore, the actions of the
modern "illuminists" are allowed by nature to occur, and they are permitted to profit
from mass murder, torture and various war-crimes. They use the scriptures of
Christianity, particularly the prophecies such as Revelations and the works of
Nostradamus, to plant certain symbols into mass media, to preclude our minds toward
expecting, and to count-down to, events they have been planning for centuries
finally coming to pass. This group of immoral atheists has no official title as a cabal,
nor any official name for their philosophy. They change their tactics and strategies
to prevent others coming to success the same way they had. They "change the rules
mid-game," and use economic shock-tests to destabilise international currency
markets and to "tilt the board" in their favour; they make legal for themselves any
active deeds they can imagine themselves benefitting from, then make it illegal for
anyone else to exploit these same legal loop-holes. They authorise torture of "enemies
of the state" while staging false-flag "terrorist" attacks against their own nation of
origin. These are the things that the "leaders" of the "free world" do on a daily basis.
conclusion:
Following any extensive study of the topic of "illuminism" as pantheist infiltratororiginating anti-monotheism in the form of "Christianity" itself one can find one's
self quite exhausted and wanting to find any moral truth to it all. There is no
justification in moral logic for the ritual sacrifice of human beings, their use as
disposable sex-slaves, and the trade of abducted children world-wide, let alone the
outright illegal declarations of war made "legal" by recent presidents. The cult of
fame, of fortune, of wealth, of success and celebrity surrounding this group of fiatcapitalist war-mongers is in its core membership comprised solely of immoral
atheists. The best manner to rid the world of this group of people is not to stoop to
their level and execute them following mock-trials; the best manner is to rid the
world of any belief in the need for this group to control and orchestrate events on a
global level. This can only be accomplished by developing a fall-back option in the
(inevitable) event their plan as laid out in the "Protocols" for a global dictator fails.
Evenetually their system will fail because it benefits nobody else but themselves; the
remainder of the population will simply cease seeing any "good" use in this group,
and freely ignore all attempts to enforce its demands. Eventually, all the prior fiatcapitalists will be forced to adopt whatever the populist "fall-back plan" ends up
being, however, if we wish to keep "capitalism" without the negative results of "fiat"
we can simply replace paper cash with gold coins. This would benefit us all, rich and
poor, equally.
prediction:

Ultimately, all the rats will leave the sinking ship not because they want to, but
because they have no other choice. It is only a matter of time before the entire
population of people on this planet will have to decide between either the "good" of
those whose imaginary "wealth" we consider "success," or else the good of themselves
as the rest alive. To prepare for a world without this group of people being in control
of the major industries, we must acceleate development of any form of alternative
plan besides their "Protocols" for a global dictatorship. Without a prepared "plan B"
ready to impliment, the globalists edge closer daily to their dream of appointing
Prince Harry the "Christ."
topic: Illuminism 101D
title: the Future for Illuminist Luciferian-Satanism
author: Jonathan Barlow Gee
organisation: the Pythagorean Order of Death (POD)
location: Tallahassee, Florida, USA
date: 5-1-2012
synopsis:
If we establish that logic and morality are not realities, but our own mental choice in
each moment, we will have successfully applied "illuminism" to erode the
foundations for the existence of monotheist religion. Monotheism, unlike pantheism,
constitutes a single ediface of institutionalised religion. There are many synagogues,
denominational churches and mosques. But there is only One monotheist God, and if
we disprove the necessary existence of this, by removing "moral logic" as an
argument for mental imagination being counted as part of solid, material reality,
then not one, not some nor many, but ALL monotheist religious insitutions fall. That,
in short, accomplishes the goal of so-called "Illuminism," foundation of the Roman
flamine "Catholic" Christian religion. The role of the Popes has been, all along, to
prove the non-existence of God, as part of their pledge to uphold the will of "Christ"
for "His Church," for the existence of "Christ" as a "Son of God" (let alone a "Church"
to embody the "Holy Ghost" to complete the Catholic "Trinity") disproves the concept
of a singular monotheist God. "Illuminism" is the true form of "Christianity," insofar
as both seek to disprove the existence of God and thus to topple the monotheist
religion by eroding its insitutions. If we establish, further, that this is and has been
the goal of a small group of less than 100 immoral atheists alive at any time - the socalled "illuminist conspiracy," a literal embodiment of the illuminist concept of a
"Synagogue of Satan" - then we may posit they themselves might not believe in
"Satan," but that, by their actively evil deeds, they are willing to deliver mankind
into the total self-destruction and moral-abnegation that is implied as the opposite of
monotheism. Thus, whether or not they themselves are "Luciferian Satanists," per se,
is irrelevant beside the fact they are, even now as I am writing these words,
attempting to consolidate to themselves the power over masses of their equals once
possesed by Pharaohs and Caesars. This group of immoral atheists is aligning
themselves, using fiat capitalism rather than production of a commodity or service,
to rule over the rest of our species by replacing the concept of monotheism with
their own appointment of a global dictator. This dictator, regardless of whether
considered "good" or "evil" by arbitrary moral logic, would be, to the illuminist
"religion," the equivalent of "God" to monotheism; thus, "Christ" would be replaced by
"Lucifer," and "God" by a living global dictator as "Satan," the true ruler over earth.
introduction:
The better question than "what is good?" is "what is relativity?" To understand that

what is "good for one" is not the same as what is "good for another," let alone what
would be "best for all," one must first understand that no matter to what one assigns
attributes of "good" or "evil," one cannot have one without the other; thus, no matter
how much "good" or "evil" there is in the universe, because these concepts are ex
post facto effects of physical reality and because these concepts are "relative" to one
another - thus we can postulate that, not only is everything in physical reality
relative to everything else in all quantities of any quality, but perhaps, because
"good" and "evil" are also relative, but are ideals, then everything in the mental
realm might be "relative" as well. Thus, "relativity" would be a common denominator
of both physical, material reality and our super-imposed mental idealisms. So, we can
begin by the postulate: "EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE," and expand on this to prove or
disprove it by comparing the relativities between reality and ideals.
Solid material reality and the realm of mental ideals are relative to one another.
"Good" and "evil" are relative to one another, in the realm of mental idealism, thus
the same way as are apples and oranges in material reality. You can compare
quantities of apples and oranges, contrast their qualities, etc. You can use them to
symbolise units of "good" or "evil" karma if you like. However, ultimately, as real as
the apples and oranges are, "good" and "evil" are only ideals. You can compare and
contrast apples and oranges on the level of material reality, alike how you can "good"
and "evil" in the mind, but this does not make the mental realm real, only "relative"
to reality. For example, say the apple is alike the idea of "evil," and the orange alike
the idea of "good." This actually subtracts from the real value of the apple and orange
both, dividing their real use into a part that is super-imposed mental ideal. This
implication of positive value disguising an actual deficiet in real worth is the sole
promise of the mental realm of ideal. Because reality pre-exists the mind, as solid
matter pre-existed the evolution of biological life, the real value is in the solid
material object itself, and not in the super-imposed mental ideals we project onto it
with our minds.
Once we realise that the mind is the pivotal fulcrum point, the bottle-necking hourglass between the apex of idealism and nadir or reality, its actual use is defined: not as
a mental-projector that shines idealist-light through a focal-lens at a blank-wall of
external-reality to show a motion-picture, a shadow-puppet show; the mind is used to
absorb matter into it and to convert it into the mental realm - the mind exists to
create new ideals. When was the last time a "new ideal" was imagined? How long has
it been considered dangerous to use our full imaginations? How long has it been
tacitly illegal to dream aloud?
terminology:
In the previous essays we defined morality as a subjective variable. It exists only in
the realm of the mind as an ideal, but cannot effectively be super-imposed onto
reality in such a way as to benefit anything by it doing so. Morality is, thus, a failed
ideal. "Realism" arises to replace failed ideals, and from its scythe now drips the blood
of "logical positivism," the concept - futily optimistic - that morality can be proven
using a series of events in reality over time. Using cause and effect to prove the
natural existence of an otherwise inert force upon matter is a self-fulfilling
prophecy. You cannot pick up a club of wood and kill a person who disagrees with
you just to prove to them that solid material reality agrees with you even if they
personally do not. They will miss your point, being as how they will be dead. You can
prove the existence of material reality this way, at least to yourself, but you cannot
prove the supremacy to it of the mental realm of ideals through any active deed you
can imagine, let alone perform in reality. Just as there is no actual "karmic unit" of

"good" or "evil" anywhere in material reality, so too can no active deed prove their
existence through cause and effect. Ideas don't exist; ideals are not reality.
If we define morality as an ideal, but define ideals as relative to reality, we can
further identify morality as a failed ideal. If this is the case, as it appears it is - for
morality promising balance offers none in fact - then what "higher ideal" should
replace morality? If "illuminism" disproves "monotheism" as an ideal itself, and if
mono-theism is the singular pinnacle capable of topping even the binary dualism of
"good" and "evil," then truly the entire mental realm is in jeapordy of proving a
complete and total waste of time and energy.
Thus, identifying "morality" as a "failed ideal," we begin our final inquiry into the
topic of "illuminist Luciferian-Satanism," to find a true ideal, a "good moral" that we
can identify, that we can share and compare to other real objects, and that can be
substituted for the failed morality of monotheism. If monotheism's anti-thesis for the
"good God" is the "evil Satan," then perhaps the first place we should look for an
answer to the quest for a "higher moral ideal" would be to seek the opposite of what
monotheism has defined it as.
If "good" and "evil" are relative in the way that apples and oranges are, then we may
imagine apples and oranges in a pure empty void, devoid entirely of gravity or other
meanings. They exist, but are without "relative" referentiality to anything else. Such
are the apple and the orange "things in themselves," and so thus are "good" and
"evil" forms of objective "things in themselves." Good and Evil are objects in the
mental vacuum alike apples and oranges would be if they were to be compared while
floating in the depths of outer-space.
Thus, the question of "what is a better ideal than morality" is answered, objectively,
quite simply by the void itself. "NOTHINGNESS is supreme to the monotheist single
deity concept in the mind, as well as to the relativity between moral ideals and objects
in material reality." It is not the addition of the monotheist "God" concept to the
binary dualism of "good" and "evil" to form the "Catholic" dialectic "Trinity" that
solves the answer of a more useful back-drop to the equation at hand. It is the
abnegation of the entire system.
methodology:
Thus, the "law of one" at the capstone of monotheism, built in turn ontop of the
pantheist cornerstone of the "laws of men," itself in turn serves as the cornerstone to
the atheist "law of none," whose capstone is, in turn, an infinite zero. This "law of
none" expressed as "infinite zero" is the solution to the equation of what may better
supercede "morality" as an ideal. Some have expressed it as "anarchy" or the "law" of
"do what thou wilt," expressed in Greek as "Thelema." This "one law of no laws" has
been the sole belief adhered to by the immoral atheists who invented "illuminist
Luciferian-Satanism" as a counter-point to "Judeao-Christian-Muslim" monotheism.
The usefullness of "infinite zero" is simple and limitless: behind everything, there is
nothingness. It is the furthest limit we have or ever can reach, providing zero
resistance and an infinitely retreating horizon, incrementally acquiescing to our
advancements along our borders of knowledge and greed. Nature, itself, is seen as
being the ultimate drawing board upon which we have traced out our structures of
"morality" as idealised castles in the sands of time. Nature, which returns all to its
most basic elements given enough time, is said to obey no higher laws, but to be the
very mechanism by which its own, interior, "natural laws" are enforced. Whenever

we see a coincidence occur, we imagine it brief proof of a higher guiding ideal,
however this ocassional glimpses into our own imaginations made real in truth
disprove just that. Nature's femininity, for example, implies to mankinds' minds the
existence of some counter-point masculine force. We imagine "God the father," or
"father time," etc. never realising that it is we ourselves who are filling that role and
playing that part ourselves by doing so.
Thus, the only more effective solution than applying "infinite zero" to our own
limitations by "natural law" is applying it to the existence of reality itself. Just as the
mental realm of ideals may be disproven using objective realism, so too can the realm
of material reality be disproven to exist using solipsism. "Solopsism" is the ontology
of the same philosophy that "nihilism" is the religious moral code. Again, immoral
atheists have embraced these both since, perhaps, before the origin of our own
species.
history:
If the "law of none" preceded the existence of the "law of one," the discovery of the
monotheist ideal of a "one true god," then how can best hope to return the world to
this simpler, more idyllic stage of a veritable "Garden of Eden," a natural paradise on
earth? We cannot. We have progressed down a long, dead-end path from which there
is no, nor can there be any, return. Our species is as much doomed to extinction prior
to our exhausting our futile clinging to the useless monotheist concept of moral logic
as each of us alive now is doomed to die sooner or later someday as well. Thus, there's
no hope for our species, and the best we can hope for is to leave some traces of clues,
some small sampling of evidence, of our present existence to future species that
might one day find and study our remains as today we do the dinosaurs. If we have
any remains of hope at all for moral logic's proving the existence of an ideally "good"
God, it lies with animals and aliens, and not in our own hands anymore.
The world chews us up and spits us out, both as individual people and as a species.
Nature has been abused by us long enough, and is no longer willing to suffer our
species existence. The simple fact is that we have broken "natural law" by superimposing our mental "ideals" and thus diminishing the real usefulness of solid
material objects in natural reality. Because of this, we SHOULD abandon absolutely
ALL hope entirely, and simply make due with finding a superior form of idealism in
nihilist, atheist solipsism. However, it is unlikely our species will be capable of
achieving this goal, aside from perhaps less than one hundred of us alive at any
given time in history, and so it falls on these remaining few to suffer the hopeless
and thankless, sad and futile fate of knowing and carrying the burden of our entire
species destiny: death.
When the dead can be cloned, and inanimate flesh made to live again, there can no
longer be the super-imposition of binary dualist moral idealism as a "natural law"
proving the existence of the monotheist concept of "God." This is because cloning, ie.
"resurrecting the dead," is forbidden in scriptures as being the "last straw," so to
speak, in sealing the demise of past species. It is believed that, because the "giants"
cloned our species into existence, for example, the Biblical flood was sent to destroy
them all, and it was only by a sub-atomically narrow margin our own species even
managed to survive it as well. Thus, now that we are at the cusp of this form of a
scientific breakthrough, we are staring down the "last straw" separating our own
species from our prior definition of "God" itself. If we "become God," usually "God"
gets very upset about it, and the result is total global extinction.

Total global extinctions happen frequently and on a regular schedule, corresponding
with one species dominance on a planet and with the peak of that planet's star's
sunspot cycle. The more heat the star bakes the planet in, the more full of hot air are
the minds of whatever is the most advanced species on that planet. The lofty ideals of
long lost species can only nowadays be imagined by examining their fossil remnants.
Reptiles grew larger over the many millennia they evolved as the dominant species
on earth, and thus their form of "logical morality" was to "idealise" size. This was, of
course, their downfall, insofar as when their environmental conditions were
suddenly changed by a comet colliding with earth, they were forced to shrink and to
bio-diversify their families of species. As the earth's global environment changed,
reptiles grew smaller and more agile, and have since adopted many traits developed
during the dinosaur-era first by mammals. As mammals, our own species has small
size and agility, and furthermore, as monkies, our species of mammal further evolved
thumbs and upright walking.
Dinosaurs were a silly species from the point of view of our own. Likewise, our own
species will appear as much a useless and futile dead-end stem on the branching tree
of evolution from a point as far ahead into our own future now as we are now from
the dinosaurs in our past. In the future, dinosaurs will be replaced by dino-hominids,
and it will be our fossilised blood, turned to tar and oil, that will be used as fuel to
power their strange machines.
I am wagering the future will belong to two forms of animal-factions, who will
evolve from the wild and from the tame forms of animals alive at this time now. In
the wild animal faction there are "birds" and "bugs," ever at war as polar extreme
opposites, the "good" and the "evil" of the untamed air. In the tame animal faction
there are "dogs" and "cats," who have achieved peace but who remain divided along
class lines the usefulness of which has expired.
It is easy enough to see all this, if one but lets go of their ego. The ego is the
temporal-lock, the conceptual framework within and behind the physical reality
that surrounds one's living body. Your mind is where and when your body thinks it
is right now only because it is stuck to it like a fly in a spider's cob-web. Until the
body dies, there's no escape for the mind from it. Thus, the mind cannot ever truly
hope to succeed in realising anything it can imagine as an ideal, as in "bringing the
gift of fire" or "drawing down the moon" as it were. Everything we touch is tainted
by our inner-wills, and everything we invent takes on a new life of its own once we
are done creating it. New ideas share themselves, and if you hold onto one too long, it
will no longer be as "good," because someone else will have already tried it by then.
Thus, the best idea is to embrace the futility of all ideals, and to expand upon the
logical amoralism of atheist solipsism. This means that the "ego" or "time-lock" one
has for themselves in their mind, their "self-definition" itself and their faculty
thereof, should be abnegated, and the use of it as a link between the mental and
material realms of ideals or reality be abolished. To accomplish this, one is best to
begin by using logic to reduce morality, then to using this form of reduced morality,
hindered by logic, to disprove the physical existence of "God." There is no "good," no
"evil," no "God" or "Satan," there is only oneself surrounded by their own infnite
cosmos.
Each of us is the core of our own cosmos. We can each try to bring down our ideals
and make them real. But the more we try, the more we will be depleting the top sands
of the hour-glass to add to the sands in the bottom half of it. Call it erosion, drainage,
entropy, decay, Thoth or whatever you like: it is the ruler of the cosmos, and our ego

is only visiting this realm temporarily. If one's own mind could fully expand to
encompass, define and control the entire real cosmos, one would realise they
themselves are the one true God over their own entire universe, of which they are
the core, and which may overlap other core-God's centralised universal spheres as
well. But then, if we are all "Gods," there is no such thing as a "one true God" possible.
Logic is preposterously useless at solving this problem, because if there is no "God,"
there is no logical justification for our own existence, let alone the solely mental
existence of our man-made idealism-machine called "logic." Using logic to disprove
God's existence is exactly like using a gun to shoot off your own toe. Anyone who
pursues this line of reasoning deserves to bleed out.
However, it is apparently necessary for some nowadays to at least TRY to "break the
godspell" that controls their otherwise more creative minds by limiting their "free"
time. People honestly believe as much that there is hope for our species as they do in
the factual existence of "God." It does not matter that no "god" by definition of "alien
biological being" fits the defintion of being the "One True God" over the whole
universe; it only matters that, all else regardless, no such "One True God" over the
whole universe can nor does exist in reality. Thus, it is just as futile to resist the logic
that disproves our own usefulness to an arbitrary and hostile reality as it is to
advocate it. In truth, only solipsism defines the true condition of reality from
anyone's mind's perspective, because such is the same amount of beleif reality has in
the contents of anyone's mind.
God hates human-kind. It is simple to see this fact, as only our own species' minds is
tortured in this way by the issue of mortality. We imagine moral logic and use this
imagined ideal to super-impose the concepts of "good," of "evil," and of "God" and
"Satan." This argument is a waste of our minds and time. In truth, only solipsism is an
accurate description of reality.
Solipsism is the belief, proven in fact, that nothing is real and that nothing real
actually exists. There is simply a vast empty void of outer-space, undistrubed with
any sub-atomic motion by the stirrings of any gravitational breeze. Nothingness
exists, and it is all that exists. We are not "brains on shelves." There are no "shelves."
There are no "brains." There is no "us." There is only nothingness, and we are simply
imagining the rest. The law of gravity is true, as if in a dream, because we imagine it
to be so. The law of entropy and decay over time is true, as if by cause and effect,
because we believe it to be so; we see it occuring here or there, then we imagine it
must always everywhere, and so everything began and continues to decay to this day.
We imagine a "God" and so, for each of us, one exists; but each imagines a different
"God" and so infinite "Gods" CAN exist.
Infinite "Gods" CAN exist only because in truth, NOTHINGNESS ALONE EXISTS.
Logically-moralist nihilism, objective-rational atheism and blind faith in total
solipsism are the three stages of "illuminist Luciferian-Satanism" ascended only by
some 70 or so people per generation. If you can embrace these as "higher ideals"
than "failed morality," you could be among these ruling elites as well, however the
likelihood they would allow anyone new to enter their folds by this point, so close to
our species' planned extinction, is unlikely to the nth degree of extremism.
We will all die. Our bodies will die, and our minds become ghosts. Our species will die
and our ghosts become Gods. This planet will die and our Gods will become souls, free
to roam anywhere in the cosmos and time. This cosmos will die and all our individual
souls will evaporate into the thinner density of the omni-spirit, the monotheist ideal

of "God." That "God" will die, and the cosmos will be reborn "under new management."
Then eventually, the idea of all existence itself will have worn so thread-bare against
the back-drop of a black curtain of Nothingness that it will simply whisp away like
cob-webs in the breezes, becoming another forgotten memory in the schizophrenic
mind of a non-existent God, the ego of the cosmos.
Therefore, there is no "Christ," there is only "illuminism" logically disproving
morality. There is no "God," there is only "Luciferianism" in the form of reality
disproving the usefulness and ultimately the existence of moral idealism. There is
nothingness; the opposite of the monotheist "God" is "Satan," defined as the
philosophy of solipsism incarnated in anyone's active deeds. If "God" was imagined to
bring "good" causes into effect, then solipsism, by realising there is no reality, thus
disproves cause and effect, which, though liberating of the mind, is futile for any use
in bringing "good" into being by our own active deeds. If we embrace solipsism, we
embrace inactivity. Insofar as inactivity is neutral it is not "all good," and thus is
more partially "evil."
What is "evil" in reality? Ultimately, nothing. Therefore, nothingness is sole kingGod in the religion of solipsism. This defines the condition of the mind within each of
us that faces the binary moral choices in our immediate future at all times. Inside the
mind of each of us, which mind empowers us over natural reality alike we imagine
the monotheist God above the whole cosmos, there is the ideal of solipsism, the belief
that, because reality is malleable and obedient, pliable to our demands, etc. that
therefore it does not exist, but our mind does. This is false. Neither the solid material
reality, nor the interior mental ideal realm, exists. They are mutual fictions, each
imagining the other. A symbiosis of non-existent mind and non-existent nature
combine to form the wheel of suffering, the "yin yang," of polar extreme opposites
within the totality of solipsism's cosmology. Nothing exists, nothing is real, nothing
is ideal. All is Nothingness.
evaluation:
What does it mean that "God is dead"? It means the idea of a monotheist cosmic omnisentience has expired in its usefulness to our species. In truth, there never was a God.
We should not feel betrayed by this. It is not "God's" fault that He does not exist. It's
mankinds' fault for pretending He did. We should never have embarked down the
road of theism in general as a species, and it will result in our eventual extinction as
such. Arguing over the moral logical attributes of "God," we will kill ourselves all off,
and soon. This is only depressing because we were promised "God" and have been
given "hell on earth" instead. Of course this offends our moral sense of fairness,
justice, rightness and all those sorts of concepts. Ethics and morality are logical, we
have asserted as much as a species; does that amount to nothing? Yes, ultimately,
everything we do will be reduced to silt in space, until even space itself evaporates
into more etheral dimensions.
Ultimately, the only proveably true fact we can assert using our minds is the nonexistence of reality. We can prove reality is superior to the metal realm by killing such is the sole "moral" motive for any war. We can prove likewise reality is inferior
to the ideal realm by suicide as a species. Ultimately, we cannot add benefit to reality
by our minds, we cannot project our moral logic onto reality in any beneficial way,
and we should, and eventually will, as a species, simply give up and accept the defeat
of our ancient attempt to justify our own mistakes. Existence is a mistake. Life itself is
a mistake. We should not have been born. When we were conceived, we began to
dream this reality into being. When we were born it was complete. Now, we live

within it like a foetus floating in the womb, dreaming of the world beyond death.
Soon, we will die regardless, and all our dreams will be forgotten.
We are lied to and told we are promised a choice. But there's no choice. The choice
between "good" and "evil" is the choice between rotten apples or rotten oranges.
Either way, they will be rotten; such is their condition in being real. We may choose
apples or oranges in reality, and "good" or "evil" in ideal, but in reality, there is no
ideal, and in idealism, no reality at all.
conclusion:
There is no God, no good or evil, no right or wrong, no right or left, no night or day,
no up, down, inward, outward; there is no mind and no reality, no solid object exists
and neither does any imagined mental ideal. You can't manifest an apple out of an
orange, nor vice versa, and trying will probably only make the entire universe
collapse in upon you like an imploding balloon of smoke in the airlessness of outerspace. There is no heaven, hell, life, death, earth nor cosmos; there is no your mind,
no my mind, there is no our mind, no natural mind. There is no mind at all, no reality
exists and you and I are not even real. I am not real, and I am not really telling you
this, because you are not real either. None of this is actually happening, because
reality is a loop that conserves both chaos and order equally, such that everything is
constantly changeing, but so that nothing ever permanently changes over time.
Ultimately, reality is an ocean and we are making waves in it that, when they finally
"go around," will "come back around" to sink us.
There is nothing. Nothing is real. Nothing exists. There is nothing more to say
beyond this. Ultimately, this is not the extent of "illuminist Luciferian-Satanism"
alone. It's the final conclusion to all forms of life and reality as a whole. You can
deny it, but denying it does not mean it is not true.
prediction:
You will not believe any of this. You, my student, will forget all that I have argued
out using moral logic and human reasoning. You will go back to watching tv and
eating microwave meals. You are already aware of the futility of your own existence,
and do not need to have your nose rubbed in it to prove the non-existence of God, of
morality, logic and ultimately everything else we like to assume is real as well.
If nothing exists and evil is caused by any activity we attempt, we have become
"freed" from the "godspell" only to be en-chained in our own regrets.
PEACE. - Jon

Yezidis: recognition signals, made with the hands:
(i) Degree of Disciple; (ii) Degree of Ecstatic; (iii) Degree of Priest; (iv) Degree of Sheikh.

:: Book III ::
Ethical Politics
(ongoing work in progress)

1) the Constitution of Atlantis
A) the book or prayers
B) the popular constitution
C) the constitution of the pope
D) the constitution of the executives
E) the constitution of the congress
2) the Restoration of Atlantis
A) what is the end of secret societies?
B) what is the end of religion?
C) what is the end of illumination?
3) how to successfully restore Atlantis
A) on the “art of war”
B) on the “game of risk”
C) on “successful empire”
4) past failures to restore Atlantis
A) introduction
B) Greek Democracy
C) the Roman Republic
D) alea iacta est

ia째:: the Book of Prayers

23 an openning prayer
My God, let us be delivered from fear.

We have convened this meeting on each point of the senate star.
Each of us is here! Salutations, Areopagites! 23!
may we never fear the seven who hold our funds in their hands. Though their proffers should
equal between only they seven themselves all the rest of our sixteen coffers combined, lo, though
we need not fear them. For we outnumber them twice over, and thus overpower them.
So, we say, in session now, may the seven be allowed to enter, and let the purse-strings be not
stingy for the agenda that we here decree.
May God protect us and forgive our sins.
-AMOUN
13 an openning prayer
Lord God, let us be delivered from doubt.
We have convened this meeting on each point of the jury star.
We are all here! Salutations to the Illumined Ones on the five points of the Sovereign Star!
I tell you truly, we have nothing to fear from the ten above nor from the seven below. For we are a
strong star, shining bright! Together we are not twice seven, which would only polarize into a
stalemate. We are seven brothers and six sisters, a sacred parashinokh are we! Our thirteen
outnumbers the ten more of the twenty-three. Our six together with their ten outnumber the
seven! All is balance. All is balance.
-AMOUN
7 an opening prayer
Good God, let us be delivered from an untimely death!
We have convened this meeting on each point of the True Areopagite heptashinokh!
For we are the Murder Council, the Final Tribunal, and ours is the Question for which an answer
is known. Let it be ourselves that may be slain before we give up our name and its meaning (it's
rank). Let our grand Eye be opened and Let the Light In! Let us see aright to stear, to guide.
May the five fathers guard us from the terrible righteousness of the other six, our daughters. Let
us guide them rightly, and bring them from helplessness into beauty and happiness and light.
May the five within us be blessed three times each! But we fear them not, for our's is the
righteousness of the six plus the two, and behold, the eight! The eight it is who can upend the
seven. So too, if the eight align with the five, we have the thirteen full against the mere ten. That
is how it is we can dissolve the senate, and how it is that, through us, the five control the court.
May the All-seeing God heal our limitations and give us wise guidance.
-AMOUN

ib°:: the Popular Constitution
I. Should there be a revolt against the seven executives:
let the seven convene the thirteen.
-source: iia°::"Quarriers' Guild"::union::"B**Z"::Beriah:formation::Water:7

II. Should the Senate refute the Tribunal:
then it becomes a difference resolved by Senatorial vote.
A. if the Senate sides with the seven executives, then all is resolved.
B. if the Senate sides against the executives, the executives
convene a Death Council to try the Senate for dissolution.
1. If the Death Council sides with the Senate, then
the Senate may convene a jury against the executives.
2. If the executive Death Council dissolves the Senate,
Let each of the five adjoint lodges disperse in the opposite
geographical direction thus until they meet others of these arts
or find ruins indicating a dissolution of yore.
-source: iib°::"Overseers' Order"::history::"ShBLTh:JChN"::Yetzirah:creation::Air:12

III. by five may all this be controlled to any outcome.
for four cannot abide unless fifthed.
so six cannot abide unless seventhed.
nor twelve unless thirteenthed.
we are five / we add two /
we are seven / we add six /
we are thirteen / we add ten /
we are twenty-three.
Should five be revolved in seven
then eighteen judge the five.
Should seven be revolved in thirteen
then sixteen judge the seven.
Should thirteen be revolved in twenty-three
then the thirteen judge the ten.
Should seven wisely guide in twenty-three
then the thirteen do not convene.
three "love" two, "two" weds "one"
the three are unknown in the five.
four "rule" seven / seven is "underneath" five
five within seven are unknown to the seven
seven has "power over" thirteen
seven within thirteen are unknown to the thirteen
thirteen can "investigate" twenty-three
the thirteen are drawn by lot from the twenty-three.
twenty three is "thrice" five plus five times one plus three.
Twenty-four men rule this country, Pal.
twenty-three magistrates and me.
-source: iic°::"Great Work's Architect"::passage::"TC:HTWSSTKS"::Atziluth:conception::Fire::22

(continues, following document: “The Pillars of Atlantean Law”)

ib°:: the Popular Constitution (continued)
IV. the Rights of Atlantean citizens :::
“Every citizen is guaranteed...
by the full government...
down to the 5 ‘fellow travellers’...
A. the Right to be free to be, to become, to think, to say, to do, to make and to profit by:
ANYTHING THEY WISH, unless a commission of a crime known to them prior.
B. the Right to be viewed Innocent unless Found Guilty by a jury of 13 from the 23.
C. the Right to be fully informed of these Rights and to have free and easy access to
the complete and current ATLANTEAN CONSTITUTIONS.
D. the Right to petition for redress of grievances against infractions of, and to
propose legislative bills to further expand, these Rights, directly and
personally, to the 23, the 13, the 7 and the 1X°. The Right to participate thus in
direct Democracy ::
1. the rights of citizens serving in the senate :
a. there will be no fewer than one chair reserved for the public by the executives.
b. there will be no fewer than two chairs reserved for the public in any regular jury.
c. there will be no fewer than three chairs in any open senate of 4 or more lodges.
d. citizen senators may vote twice each, citizen jurors and exec once each.
e. citizen senators may abstain from voting, citizen jurors and exec may not.
2. the duties of citizens serving in the senate :
a. among the executives, serve your own best interest.
b. among the jury, represent the moral high ground.
c. among the senators, represent your constituency.
E. the Right to Direct Democracy :::
1. Any citizen senator may be drawn by LOT to serve on a jury.
A. if 2 of 3 citizens are drawn, the 3rd is stepped down or may challenge a peer.
B. if a citizen wishes to abstain, they may be stepped down or challenged by a peer.
C. if a citizen senator elects into jury duty, they are duly replaced in the Senate by an
alternate elected by their constitutency.
2. a citizen executive can use a series of COIN tosses to represent “Y / N”
to estimate more or less likely votes of their 6 fellow executives.
3. a citizen senator, a citizen juror and a citizen executive can all role 6-sided DICE,
with sides numbered “3” through “9,” to tile a 64 square go-board.
Further adaptations involve movements of pieces based on
adding patterns in the correspondent-sized magic number squares.

ib°:: the Popular Constitution (conclusion)
F. in exchange for the Rights of its citizens,
to liberty, equality and direct Democracy,
the government of Atlantis reserves the following ...
1. the Duties of the Atlantean government:
a. to protect its citizens’ Rights.
b. to provide free and easy access to complete and current Constitutions.
c. to begin such for each citizen over the age of 13 months.
d. to provision police, prisons and executioners per commission by Senate vote.
2. the Priveledges due to the government:
a. to trust all government funds to the church, thus...
- in order to create a religio-banking establishment
- in order to protect all funds from secret hands
- in order to create a third-party ex-chequer.
b. to petition any sum withdrawal or deposit at any time from such bankers
- to be granted on proof of legitimacy per withdrawal.
- to be accepted gratis temporarily per deposit.
c. to hold the church accountable
- for government salaries.
- for collecting voluntary and anonymous taxation.
3. the Temporary Provisions of the Atlantean government:
a. to deduct funds from the church to arm the lodge guards.
b. to detain any citizen...
- who cannot (by volition) or will not (by refusal) obey...
- the laws of the current and complete Constitutions...
- and who is caught in a criminal act...
- until such time as their confession, their trial or their sentencing.
c. the government reserves the right to enforce punitive sentencing.
d. confer document “the basis of the Law” re. sentencing structure.

A) written by Pope (X°)
-then/later/ongoing
B) stipulated by contract ( • • • )
-then/at death/ unspecified
C) kept by standing papal court ( • • )
(ministry of banking)
- the following rights must be chosen for the two Papal alternates:
1) while in session in the senate ( • )
A) and the Pope is presiding:: ( • • )
- take minutes, balance accounts, collect votes ( • • • )
- in open sessions:: serve as alternates and guards of the Pope
- in closed sessions:: serve as alternates and guards of the Pope
B) and the Pope is not presiding:: ( • • )
- collect votes, tell the time ( • • • )
- in open sessions:: as Area chairs, take minutes, balance accounts
- in closed sessions:: as Area chairs, take minutes, balance accounts
2) while in a judicial hearing::
- represent the interests of the Area and Order ( • • )
3) while in executive conference::
- represent the interests of their Area ( • • • )
4) in the event of continuity of office ( • • )
A) the two alternates will select by chance either one of them
(lots or coin) ( • )
B) the three remaining Area chairs will ratify or veto them as:: ( • • )
"Temporary Judicial Executive-Representative," standing position
C) the first order of duty is::
- convene an ecumenical senate to nominate new papal candidates
- the alternate Pope is considered last among the nominees ( • )
* see "equinox of the Popes" doc for further details * ( • • )
5) in the event continuity of office is not completed ( • • • )
A) in the event of veto of first alternate by the 3 remaining Area chairs
- second alternate is vetoed or ratified ( • )
B) in the event of veto of second alternate by the 3 Area chairs
- a representative from among the 3 other chairs is draw by lot ( • • )
C) in the event an ecumenical senate can convene immediately
- the alternate Pope is considered last among the nominees ( • • • )
* see "equinox of the Popes" doc for further details * ( • • )

(Y/N)
6/1
5/2
4/3
3/4
2/5
1/6

: pope can abstain only
: pope can vote only
: pope can veto/pass
: pope can veto/pass
:pope can vote only
: pope can abstain only

iib째:: the Constitution of the Executives (ongoing)
C. the Formal System or Ethics of Reasoning ::
1. as "moral compass"
2. as "memory castle"
3. projection / manifestation
a. mind / matter
b. idealism > realism
c. reading --> writing
II. the "Law of Life" is :::
DO WHAT THOU WILT
A. "Shall Be The Whole Of The Law."
1. meanings and definitions
a. "Thou" - the "higher" or "true" will
b. "Wilt" - the utility of the self
c. "Shall Be" - following such action
d. "The Law" - universal necessity
B. "Love Under Will"
1. meanings and definitions
a. "Love" - true or guided emotion
b. "Under" - the passion of empathy
c. "Will" - the "higher" or "true" will
III. the "Law of the Book" is :::
LOVE IS THE LAW
A. the teachings of the book
1. against defeat and imbalance of power
2. in favour of trusting neighbors to know
B. idealism > realism
-scribal colophon, contents incomplete, translation ongoing.

open only to Masons of the second degree or higher, blue lodge.
mod = BRobbins

iic°::"Great Work's Architect"
passage::"TC:HTWSSTKS"::Atziluth:conception::Fire::22
open only to Masons of the third degree, duly and truly.
mod = Horus

Wanderers&Scribes::Bund::planetary::Be
III°::Essene:Zealot
Grand Master::Indigo:Cube::SN:Mercury::Gemini:Virgo::Nesfesh
Open only to Masons of the York Rite.
mod = BRobbins
IV°::Templar:Knight:Zion
Ambassador::Orange:Octahedron::WN:Venus::Taurus:Libra::Ruach
Open only to Masons of the Scottish Rite.
mod = lordosiris
V°::Regal:Rosicrucians
Regional::Blue:Isocahedron::EM:Mars::Aries:Scorpio::Neschemah
Open to the "Argentum Astrum" or outer three degrees of co-masonry (OES)
mod = benpadiah
VI°::Perfected:Illuminati
District::Yellow:Dodecahedron::G:Jupiter::Pisces:Saggitarius::Chiah
Open only to the members who are advanced into the Golden Dawn.
mod = Ketherel
VII°::Bohemian:Camp
Area::Green:Tetrahedron::T:Saturn::Aquarius:Capricorn::Jechidah
Open only to co-members of the OTO.
mod = IXODidymus
Shamen&Wizards::Lemuria::lunar:Ka
8°::Priest:Binah
ADNY:AyinSophAur::church:3V°:2VI°:1VII°=6::7:23
minimum needed to comprise a "church" = 3 OES, 2 GD, 1 OTO = 6

13°::Kether:7
Executives:(1iia°)+(2iib°)+(3iic°)+(1X°)=7::mercury=air/water::"No Thing"
1 Mason of the first degree, 2 second degree, 3 of the third degree and 1 pope

benpadiah wrote:
what is the end of secret societies? What goal will cause its purpose to reach the desired
conclusion? What will finally eleviate the necessity for secret societies, according to their own
tenets and doctrines?
the revelation of secrets is the end of secret societies.
Once all the secrets have been revealed, there will be no more need for secret societies.
One of the biggest secrets is about the calendar. It involves precession, which is the study of the
earth's rotation around its pole as it revolves around the sun. Just as there are seasons in the
year, so too are there seasons over the many millions of years, which account for all the
climatology of earth throughout all time.
Another big secret is about "secret" science, "esoteric" energies, etc. This deals with the
"vibrational" states of matter-energy, as described briefly in the Kybalion. We have long known,
for example, that by distorting the orbits of electrons around atomic nuclei that we can transport
not only molecular but even biological (even mechanical as well) matter through these different
vibrational "dimensions."
Another big secret is about the motives behind political events. These we determine by spreading
philosophical jargon memetically through the media and through the free press. We control what
people talk about. If we don't want them to know about something, such as longevity drugs, we do
not talk about it publically. Instead we talk about something very much different from it in order
to distract the attention of the uninitiated away from our secret, such as, in the case of longevity
drugs, we talk about the right to abort a foetus. In this way, we create genetic grafts from stem
cells harvested from aborted female foeti in China to produce oranic nano-tech that is then traded
to the west for a pittance.
However, as I have said, the real motive of secret societies is to REVEAL, not to conceal, these
types of secrets. But we have a strange method: we wait until someone outside our order
independently discovers a secret, and then we initiate them. Take Albert Einstein, for example.
Independently of Alfred North Whitehead, Einstein discovered the concept of relativity between
distance and duration, and thus between space and time, and thus between matter and energy.
Eventually, however, Einstein himself signed petitions to sequester additional funding for the
Manhattan Project to develop a nuclear bomb. Why did Einstein do this? Because we made certain
that he received the wrong intelligence from Le贸 Szil谩rd regarding Nazi capabilities of building
atomic weapons.
Meanwhile, the mass public is busy chasing their tail.
Soon there will be the revolution of the secret societies: when all secrets are at last revealed.
How will we do this? We have created a new class in America: a class of neavue-riche. How has
this been done? We have de-invested money from Asian energy markest, deregulated local power
plants, and dumped the funds from the one into the other, laundering this transaction through
Enron. We now sell America it's electricity. We have invested in US oil companies as well, and
now sell America its oil. US oil companies have been price-gouging to meet consumer and military
demand for oil. The Pentagon has been waging war in Iraq not to OWN but to SELL regional sources
of oil on the world market in euros. US automotive companies are focusing manufacture in foreign
nations in order to dump funding into research and development of integration of alternative
energy sources and propulsion systems by private subsidiary companies.

This neaveau-riche class has been enlisted entirely in support of the corrupt government that has
been installed in America. The neo-cons, like the NAZIs before them, are school-yard bullies, but
the neavaeu-riche will always prove to only be school-yard toadies, sychophantic suck-ups to
whomever they feel indebted to for their sudden wealth. They have been employed by the neo-con
party in America, as by the infiltrators under Tony Blair in Britain, etc. as well as its clones in
certain other western nations including, as well, Mexico, Canada and Australia.
It is quite clear to this class in the United States today that, while the money they pay for gas is
real, the money they possess in stocks and bonds is not. In other words, the investment in them by
their bank when it makes a loan to them, thus putting them under an interest-bearing debt
structure, is more real than the combined sum of their tax return and stock dividends. The money
invested in them is real, the money they owe is real. The money they invest, the money they
spend, is not real. It is called debt and credit. The middle class right now in the US is glutted
with liquid assets because of massive over-extension of the value of the dollar.
This is a criminal conspiracy which every single person in America at this time is benefitting
from, and therefore one for which they are culpable of having particpated in. This conspiracy is
being controlled by secret societies.
However this is only the situation in one of all the nations of the earth. The conspiracy controlled
by secret societies extends across all borders. It is a conspiracy of the mind. It is the conspiracy
to liberate the mind from mental slavery: to reveal all secrets.
Soon, the True Revolution will come, one led by the Secret Societies, and when this day comes, nigh
as it is, all secrets shall be revealed, all mysteries solved and all truths known by all.

-ben
benpadiah wrote:
what is the end of religion? What goal will cause its purpose to reach the desired conclusion?
What will finally eleviate the necessity for religion, according to its own tenets and doctrines?
the death of reason is the end of religion.
but reason can never die. As long as there is the "spark" of the human intellect in even one
individual, this "spark" of suspicion becomes a "fire" of questing and this "fire" becomes the
flame of reason. Religion calls all this the "hero myth." It idealises, and does not realise, the
premise of the hero. It holds it apart and above and describes it as lost to the past.
But this is the evidence: so long as there be two individuals together, each possessing the
intellect, the self-awareness, of consciousness, there will be one in whom this "spark" ignites
brighter, and one in whom this "spark" ignites longer. The brighter teaches the other one, and the
other one maintains this teaching after the brighter one becomes dimminished. The one in whom
the intellect is greater, their ego will overflow themselves, and the lesser person's sense of self
will, by necessity, be filled up by this. Whenever there are two people, one will become the
leader.
Therefore, so long as there is inequality in reason by nature, there will be the true rational
reason held by the leaders, and the religion holding such "heroes" above the lesser intellectuals.
Now, what do we say is our aim?
We are on the side of reason. Reason is the sole light of this universe, above the false lights of the

stars. We say then, we are the enemies of religion that would worship us. Why is this? Because, if
reason serves, then the end of religion will remain the death of reason.
Reason, according to religion, is the lesser light. It will burn out sooner than the stars, and so we
must worship reason in secret, while openly killing the best minds of every generation in the
name of the stars. Why is this done? Because religion begins where reason ends. Religion believes
it is the longer light, because it believes it is not the one burning brighter now than reason. It
advocates the persecution complex among the very ones it leads to Holy War.
Reason will end all war.
Consider this method: over time we, the guardians of reason, have brought into power over the
mindless masses the least from among them. In terms of intelligence and right to stature we have
elected the lowest of the low to the positions of greatest authority. Why have we done this? It is to
discredit all philosophies. All belief-systems, the short-term and the long-term political
agendas, as well as the longer-term religious and royal agendas, etc. shall be brought before the
light of reason and made to kneal down before it. Every dog will have its fifteen minutes in court.
And all shall be found "guilty," shamed for having the ability to feel shame, and made to suffer
under the heal of oppression by one another. The political philosophies have each been toppled
the most easily: socialism we have discredited by calling nationalism "socialism," and
totalitarianism "communism;" capitalism we have discredited by making it into fascism; royalism
has become irrelevant now beside federalist hegemonies; and the very idea of bloodline descent
has become tantamount to racism.
These are only the political philosophies which we have worked from behind the scenes to
discredit during the twentieth century. Why are we doing this? By destroying all these
philosophies we are toppling the very philosophy behind religion itself. We are discrediting
every reason why people separate the one among them from the other, and say the one is superior
to the other, and worship the one at the expense of the other.
We erode away the foundation of the religious concept itself. The religious concept states: the
Plan of God is ineffable. This is a lie. The religious concept states: only God forgives original sin.
This is a lie. The religious concept states: the meak and the innocent are the religious. This is a
lie.
We uphold the concept: God is real. Religion seeks to discredit this, even as we must continually
discredit its definitions for reason. According to the religious concept: you cannot even say that
God does exist, so ineffable is he. Why? According to the religious concept, this is because man
must toil to survive, thus proving some form of "original sin" accounting for our fall from before
the face of the Ultimate Ideal. Why? Because they say that True Reason is Blindness, they say that
True Reason is naivety wed to sarcasm, they say True Reason is interpretable by them alone. They
say any reason outside of church sanction is False. They have come to dictate morality and the
very perception of reality itself.
It is not one religious institution alone we wish to discredit. It is the philosophy of
Belief is only necessary in the absence of evidence. Belief, therefore, is the opposite of
Knowledge is the possession of evidence. We say that, by reason, we have Knowledge
Real. This is both the brighter and the longer light of Reason that will outshine and
dimmer and the weaker light of Religion: belief is not necessary in the prescence of
This destroys religion.
Religion has nothing to do with God.

faith itself.
knowledge.
that God Is
outlive the
knowledge.

Religion is exclusively the philosophy that where there are two, one will rule. By destroying the
rule of religion that separates the fools from among the wise, and even sets them in the Higher
regard, we will elevate all the sentient entities to equal intelligence of the One True undeniable
reality. We will pull the blindfold from over the eyes of Reason at last, and then we shall see the
True Light, the Greater Light.

-ben
benpadiah wrote:
what is the end of illumination? What goal will cause its purpose to reach the desired conclusion?
What will finally eleviate the necessity for illumination, according to the very tenets and
doctrines of illuminism?
the hyper-cathexis of the multiverse is the end of illumination.
I am sure you have heard of the concept of the buying power of the student class by now. It has
been hypothesised that a boycot of a good or service provided by a single corporate business for a
day by all the students in the nation would effectively end that corporation's business career by
crashing its rate of exchange value on the futures stock market. That would, it has been
speculated, effectively accomplish a social revolution, one that could easily occur over night.
Well, the hypercathexis of the universe works kind of like that. We know that the orbits of the
planets and the sunspot cycle are related. Thus the alignment of the seven noble planets in 2000
initiated the beginning of the sunspot cycle peak which will last until the year 2012. At this
point, the orbital plane of the solar system will transect that of galactic plane, and our sun will
align from earth with galactic core. Now, you may be scratching your head wondering.... But if you
are it is probably already too late to explain this all to you before you begin to panic.
When the seven planets align, when the sun aligns with galactic core, so too will the plane and gas
jets of our galaxy be in a relative position of alignment to approximately 1/4 all the other
galaxies in the local universe. When our sun aligns with galactic core, it will have somewhat the
same effect on the black hole at the Milky Way's centre as the alignment of the seven noble
planets is now on our own sun. Just as, now, the sunspot cycle is reaching its peak, so too will the
alignment of our star with the black hole core of our galaxy trigger a reaction upon the surface of
that black hole. Instead of sunspots forming on the surface of a star, however, here we will see
wormholes forming on the surface of the black hole. But this is only the beginning. Following this
the 1/4th galaxies in alignment will polarise, and all the galaxies in the local universe will align
in a sudden crystaline super-saturation.
What does this mean? This is, within the context of a nervous system, what Sigmund Freud called
"hyper-cathexis." Freud explained that when electrochemical kinetic energy was passed through
a nerve, most of it continued onward, but some of it stayed behind. The amount that stayed behind
(which he called phi) built up until the single nerve would fire off the additional energy on its
own. Freud considered this the will power, and contrived the theory of ego such that it depended
on the perpetuation of hyper-cathexis.
Our entire local universe is a very large nervous system, essentially identical to the cells in our
brains, neurons. This is like the filament strings of galaxies and the cosmic voids between them.
The neurons in our brain fire cathected phi from a neuron axon to a neuron dendrite, across the
axon-dendrite gap between the nerves. This is like the alignment of galaxies and the exchange
between them of gravitational tachyons.
Now, as I have said, there are some factions who are aware of these facts, and most of the details,

although little of the general philsophies, is public knowledge to the man on the street. We know
the sunspot level is increasing, because it is hotter. There are more tropical storms, stronger
hurricanes, there are floods and ice bergs breaking off glacier sheets in the south pole. Modern
trends include excercising indoors, drinking fruit slushies and invading a desert nation for
petroleum resources to fuel hummers and make compact discs. The rest follows.
As the temperature continues to increase, essentially hot-boxing the gaseous atmosphere of
planet earth with carbon monoxides and ultraviolet black-body radiation trapped within the
ozone layer like inside a greenhouse, the levels of insanity will begin to increase with it. Media
sensationalism will prommote immediatist (poetic terrorist) and trans-humanist ideals and
philosophies of cyberpunk will turn the attention of the elites away from the turmoils of war. A
new intelligentsia will arise to prommote the aesthetics and the medical values of the new
technologies that merge mind and machine, reality and cyberspace.
However within six years from the time I write this, feverish insanities will have replaced even
the most transcendental and recluse philosophical societies. There will be an entirely new
generation, the younger siblings of the echo-boomer intelligentsia, that will have grown up under
the shadow of imperialism, and who will be a generation of extremely volatile youth. Eager for
action, and fueled on rage against the media and the duplicitous political system, these
individuals will revive the massive, populations wide use of hallucinogenic and psychotropic
drugs in a desperate attempt to translate their generation off the very face of the planet.
Their elder siblings will not have this: as the young neo-cons of today grow to maturity over the
next six years, they will endorse stricter and more nationalist views, alienating their political
idealogies from their degenerate younger siblings. These two generations: see how they play out
the politics of our era so nicely: the intelligence community and military industrial complex are
the "big brother" of the younger, rebellious student class, as has been the case throughout the
latter 20th.
Only when the brother is pit against the brother will they finally see: Armeggedon was world war
one. Hitler was the false prophet. The second coming already happened, and they missed it. They
will see they are like Cain and Abel locked in struggle with one another like Jacob and Elohim,
even inferior in generations to Adam himself, who came in the form of the Great Beast: Mabus, or
Usama Ben Ladin, the reincarnation of Jesus of Nazareth.
And then the people will look around and in the rising heat see a true wonder: a city of gold, and a
fountain of eternal youth.
And that will be about in the early summer of 2012. All of this, all modern political philosophies
and historical events will be revealed as having been conducted to play out across earth's surface
the cermonial rites of certain initiatory mystery schools, such as both secret societies and
religions.
By the winter of 2012 it will be time. Many of the remaining threats to the social order of the "big
brothers" will have been exterminated by this time, and many hundreds more will be in camps.
These camps are located in the US, however they will mainly be foreign nationals who are being
deported there and burned alive.
The physical sacrifice will be made so that the spirit can transcend unfettered. The elite members
of the currently young neo-cons and their siblings born since 2000 will ingest the White Powder
Gold and be "translated" up to heaven, bodies and all.
And there, standing between all of these souls and their salvation in the beam of light connecting
earth to the sun and the sun to galactic core and our galaxies to all others and so the awakenning

of the universal mind... will be the one we have elected from among us, the secret societies, to
judge them each and let in only those who are chosen.
Those bearing the imprint of the death camps (REX84) will be weighed against those who betrayed
them in the flesh only to free them in the spirit. They will all be there, all the ancestors and all
the sentient entities throughout the universe will watch.
Ultimately, the one whom they all judged most will be sitting on the other side to judge them for
eternity. And this is only the beginning of the illumination.

-ben

on the â&#x20AC;&#x153;art of warâ&#x20AC;?
An army comprised of loyal volunteers, who are also well cared for, is invincible.
An army comprised of loyal volunteers, who are not well cared for, will win with losses.
An army comprised of drafted conscripts, who are well cared for, can win with losses.
An army comprised of drafted conscripts, who are not well cared for, is already lost.
By not caring for an army of loyal volunteers, one's soldiers will be reduced to slaves.
Loyal volunteers fight to be victorious.
Drafted conscripts fight to survive.
Slaves will fight only for their freedom.
There are two types of slaves.
One type of slave is not well cared for. This type of slave is worthless as a worker. This type of
slave will spy on their master and sell their knowledge to their master's enemy. This type of slave
will revolt with ten times the strength they exhibit at work against their master as soon as the
oppurtunity to do so with assured success arises. This type of slave will see freedom as necessary
to survival.
The other type of slave is well cared for. This second type of slave is especially skilled. This type
of slave will serve their master unless promised freedom by their master's enemy. This type of
slave will revolt only with the same amount of force with which they have been punished by their
master. If the master is punitive, the slave will be encouraged to revolt. If the master rewards the
slave, the slave will serve proudly. This type of slave prefers immediate survival to the promise of
freedom.
There are two type of drafted conscripts.
The first type of drafted conscript is a well cared for slave. A well cared for slave will fight
willingly for two reasons: the promise of freedom from slavery, or the expansion of their rights
while remaining slaves. Of these two reasons, the former will motivate a slave who is punished
more than rewarded, and the latter will motivate a slave who is rewarded more than punished.
Well cared for slaves who fight willingly for their rights, if they are well cared for as an army,
will win with losses against an army of loyal volunteers who are not well cared for. Well cared for
slaves who fight for the promise of freedom will lose to an uncared for army of loyal volunteers
fighting for rights.
The second type of drafted conscript is a citizen. Of citizens who can become drafted conscripts to
form an army there are two types: the first are citizens of the nation into whose army they are
conscripted; the second are citizens of another nation than the one into whose army they are
conscripted. If a citizen is conscripted by draft into their own nation's army, they will fight for
the reason of their own personal survival. If they are promised additional rights as the goal of
victory, they will fight to be victorious. If a citizen is conscripted by another nation than their
own, they will fight to be victorious if they are promised freedom, but will only fight their own
nation to survive.

There are two types of loyal volunteer.
One type fights for the expansion of their own rights. If a loyal citizen is promised additional
personal rights for volunteering to their national army, they will fight for their own survival,
because acquiring their additional rights depends on survival.
The other type fights for the expansion of the rights of their nation. A loyal volunteer fighting for
the expansion of the rights of their nation will fight for the cause alone if well cared for, but will
only fight for their own survival if not well cared for.
The most invincible form of army is one comprised of loyal volunteers who fight to expand the
rights of their nation and who are well cared for. Such an army cannot be defeated except in
mutual destruction by an equal army.
The most easily defeated form of army is one comrpised of well cared for slaves who are not well
cared for as an army. Such an army is only more effective than an army of conscripts from the
enemy nation. An army of alien conscripts fighting their own nation will revolt if not well cared
for. An army of uncared for slaves will revolt.

on the â&#x20AC;&#x153;game of riskâ&#x20AC;?
By applying these rules to the composition of armies before entering battle, any army can be
assigned a rate of probable success or failure against any other, and the outcome of any battle can
be predicted before even being entered.
The prediction of a battle's most probable outcome before it is entered is the most important form
of strategy in the art of war. If a series of battles' outcomes can be accurately predicted, then one
can advance through the ranks of the armies whose victory is most likely, and can come to
establish an empire.
Just as the prediction of the outcome of battles is described within the sphere considered the "art
of war," so is the strategy of applying the accurate predictions made possible by studying this art
considered a game of "risk." If one applies the "art of war" in the game of "risk," one will quickly
conquer all.
The ultimate result of the "art of war" is the ability for one to predict victory in any combat, and
the application of this strategy results in one betraying any loyalty presenting an impediment to
their own predictions of victory. Such a one as applies the "art of war" in the game of "risk" will
find themselves among a shrinking group of traitors. Only by stabbing your last friend in the
back can a safe empire be assured.
However, once an empire is established by such as one who follows the "art of war," and who
successfully applies its strategies, certain additional rules are necessary to understand for the
maintenance of their empire.
It is necesary, then, to apply the same rules to one's own loyal populations during a peaceful
empire as are used in composing an army. The primary difference is that, while one deals with the
compositions of armies to battle enemy nations, one is attempting to maximize the likelihood of
victory of thier own nation's army over their nation's enemy's army. In point of fact, the opposite
is desired to maintain an empire. Rather than a strong army, the goal of empire is a weak
population.
In order to properly maintain an empire, one must build a population that is least likely to revolt,

however one who is also least likely to achieve victory as an army. Therefore, to maintain empire,
the population must be separated against one another much the same way as in the composition of
armies, however instead of an army that can be mobilised against an enemy nation, the preferable
form for an empire is a police force that can be utilised against their own national population.

on â&#x20AC;&#x153;successful empireâ&#x20AC;?
The traditional form of empire falls into the shape of a three tiered triangle. The base tier is
comprised of the population of citizens. The second tier, lesser group is comprised of the national
army or police. The third tier, the singular apex of the triangle, is reserved to the minimum
possible number of the ruling elite. The composition of the police and the composition of the
population must be balanced such that the police can effectively suppress the much larger
population of citizens from revolt against the ruling elite. The composition of the police and the
population must also be manipulated by the ruling elite such that, should the police and citizens
combine to revolt against the ruling elite, their chances of success will be minimalised. The
balance between police and citizens is one of brute force. The balance between the ruling elite and
the rest of their population is one of strategy.
A population comprised of well cared for slaves and uncared for citizens is best for an empire.
A police force comprised of uncared for slaves and well cared for citizens is best for an empire.
A population or police force comprised of well cared for slaves and citizens will desire expansion
of rights.
A population or police force comprised of uncared for slaves and citizens will desire expansion of
freedom.
If citizens that desire rights combine with a police force that desires freedom, they will revolt
against the ruling elite.
If citizens that desire freedom revolt, a police force that desires rights will combine with the
ruling elite.
The ruling elite cannot suppress a revolt by both the citizens and the police. That is why the
balance between police and citizens is one of brute force.
The ruling elite, combined with the police, can suppress a revolt by the citizens under certain
specific conditions.
If the citizens are equal or less in actual numbers to the perceived numbers of combined police
and the ruling elite, then the revolt will be suppressed.
If the citizens are equal or greater in actual numbers to the perceived numbers of combined police
and elite, their revolt will be successful.
That is why the manipulaton of the population by the elite is one of strategy. If the perceived
number of the ruling elite is equal or greater than the actual number of police, the police will
side with the ruling elite.
If the actual number of the ruling elite is less than the perceived number of police, the citizens
will not be successful in a revolt against either.

The number of citizens is always greater than that of the police, and the number of police is
always greater than that of the ruling elite. It is only by manipulation of one group's perception
of the number of another group that revolt can be avoided. It is only by manipulation of police
against citizens that the elite can suppress a revolt.
In order to assure the success of their empire, a hegemon must apply to the composition of their
populations this set of rules as much so as, in order to assure the victory of their army, a
strategist must apply to the composition of their armies the "art of war." Just as by applying the
"art of war," one can win the game of "risk" and establish an empire, by applying these rules for
the composition of their population, one who establishes or inherits such an empire can maintain
their empire in safety.
To maintain an empire, it is necessary to divide the population between a police force and the
remainder of the population. The police force and the rest of the population are both comprised of
slaves and citizens, because it is necessary the perceived number of police be greater than the
actual number of the rest of the population. In order to accomplish this, slaves in the police force
are equal in rights to free citizens. Thus, citizen police are actually closer to the ruling elite than
are the rest of the population. A citizen in the police force is defined by being a loyal volunteer,
while a slave in the police force is defined as being an enemy conscript.
The citizen-based police force is equivalent to an army of loyal volunteers. Just as a well cared
for army of loyal volunteers is invincible in battle, the citizen-based police force is life or death
in suppressing a revolt. In order to survive it is necessary for the ruling elite or hegemon to
establish a citizen-based police force greater in perceived number than the actual number of the
non-police force population. Thus, well taken care of slaves will side with the citizen-based
police force, and so the perceived number of police will be greater than the actual number of
citizens.
In an empire under such conditions, whereby citizens who serve the role of police are well cared
for, where citizens who do not serve the role of police are given less rights, and where well taken
care of slaves are more likely to side with the police force than with their masters, who are nonpolice free citizens, the ruling elite will prosper.
In an empire under the conditions, however, whereby citizens who serve the role of police are not
well cared for, where free citizens are perceived to outnumber the police force, or where slaves,
well cared for or not, outnumber in actual number the perceived number of police, the ruling elite
will be in peril.
The citizen-based police force, given additional rights to free citizens and well cared for, can be
conscripted to serve the ruling elite in a capacity equivalent to that of an uncared for slave eager
to betray their punitive master. This specialised role of the citizen police officer is that of the
spy.
The perceived number of spies is equal to the actual number of loyal volunteers to the citizenbased police force, even though not all loyal police are spies. This is, ultimately, the most
important variable in the entire equation of empire. If the actual number of spies is less than or
equal to the actual number of volunteer police, and the actual number of the ruling elite is less
than the actual number of spies, the ruling elite will prosper most. However, if there is only a
slight inequality in either of these cases to imbalance the equation in the opposite direction, it
will allow a successful revolt by the population against the ruling elite.
If the actual number of spies were perceived to be less than the actual number of voluntary police,
as it actually is, then the balance would be tipped in favour of the population. The slaves would
revolt against their masters, the citizens against the police, the slave police against the free, and

the free police against the spies, until the spies themselves would revolt against the ruling elite.
Each of these naturally outnumbers the next, such that eventually the entire population would
side against the ruling elite. The form of revolt in which the entire population sides against the
ruling elite is called a revolution. When one ruling elite is overthrown in a successful revolution,
a larger actual number ruling elite establishes a new empire.
Because the entire mechanism of empire hinges on the single gear defined as the perceived
number of spies being greater than or equal to the actual number of free police, it is also this
lynchpin that must be studied to achieve a successful revolution.
There are two types of police: free police, who are loyal volunteers, and slave police, who are
drafted conscripts. The actual number of spies is comprised of a fraction of the free police and a
fraction of the slave police as well. This is how the perceived number of spies may be maintained
as greater than the actual number, and thus how the perceived number of the ruling elite,
comprised of the actual number of the ruling elite and the spies, can be maintained as greater
than the actual number of the ruling elite, comprised of the actual number of ruling elite and the
fraction of spies drawn from the free police. The difference is the actual number of slave police
who are spies. If the slave spies side with the citizens, a revolt will be successful. If the slave
spies side with the elite, no revolt can succeed.
Because of this, for an empire to be maintained, there must be more spies drawn from free police
than from slave police. For a conscripted police officer to be made a spy, they must be promised
freedom. For a volunteer police officer to be made a spy, they must be promised expanded
personal rights.
The scale of rights in an empire is therefore opposite the three-tiered triangle design for the
population. The greatest actual number group, slaves, have the least rights, while the smallest
perceived number group, the ruling elite, have the most rights. The second greatest actual number
group, citizens, have less rights than police, who have less rights than spies, who serve the ruling
elite directly. Police have the median amount of rights, and comprise the median actual number
sized group. That is why spies should come from the free police above the slaves, and why police
should come from voluntary free citizens more so than from slaves. If police desire freedom, it is
dangerous to the empire.
Therefore, the police force is the exact opposite of an army. The army that fights best fights to
expand the rights of their own nation. The police force that serves best uses brute force to limit
the rights of its nation's citizens. Thus, citizens are made the slaves of the police, police the
servants of spies, and spies the actual rulers behind a hegemon.
This will only appear complex to the common citizen due to the manipulation of their perception
by spies. They have been convinced that there are no slaves because we are all equally capable of
earning money. They have been convinced that having money will give them rights expanded as
much as those of the police. They have been convinced that spies and police serve the best
interests of the population. Most insidiously, they have been convinced they do not even presently
live in an empire.
An empire is defined by a strong police force, a weak population, a high perceived number of
spies and small actual number ruling elite, as well as a weak or absent army defending the
personal rights of their nation's own citizens. However, there exists no industrial nation at this
time that does not fit this definition. In fact, it is widely accepted by the citizens of all nations
that the "art of war" was long ago applied to the game of "risk," and that the current ruling elite
are comprised of traitors to the populations of their own nations who rule internationally now.
These elite are simply called "the rich," while the population of their empire are collectively
known, relative to their rulers, as "the poor."

This is because the strategy of money has been victorious over the brute force of armies and
police. Because the elite, through spies, claim to have almost all of the money, the remainder of
the populations of all nations are made to desire and to serve that money. They are told that
money means survival, and that work brings freedom, but such concepts are contradictions and
impossibilities of fiction.
Therefore, although we are told by spies who serve the elite that we live in nations and that the
armies of those nations are at war with one another, the majority of the population realises that we
are all united in poverty caused by the rumors of such inter-national wars, but that, because no
nations exist, no wars between them are possible. Instead, we understand war as the elite sending
two groups of the population to kill one another. Therefore, where there are no nations, no wars
and no wealth, there is revealed only the true conditions of our present reality: the ruling elite,
their spies, and the police who oppress money-slaves. All serve to gain the promise of wealth
which they themselves will never actually possess.
Until the population of citizens realises that, relative to police, they have the same rights as
slaves do relative to citizens, there will not be a revolution. Just as slaves fear free citizens, the
citizens who fear the police will remain slaves to their own luxury. So long as citizens fear police,
police enjoy expanded rights to those of citizens. So long as this continues to be the case, the
current empire will persist.

~GOD~

introduction

benpadiah wrote:
There is a very popular misconception in the minds of modern Americans regarding the nature of
their government.
The framers of the United States constitution used the word "democracy" to refer to "direct" or
"bottom up" Democracy, while they used the term "republic" to refer to "representative" or "top
down" Democracy.
Therefore, many people confuse the Democratic Party with advocating "direct" Democracy, while
confusing the Republican Party with advocating "representative" Democracy.
In effect, either way, the majority of modern American minds agree, the two-party system is as
natural an outgrowth of our Democractic Republic as was the Roman Republic from Greek
Democracy.
Wrong.
The two-party system that has developed over the past century in the United States is neither a
"direct" nor "representative" Democracy as envisioned by the framers of the Democratic Republic
constitution.
Rather than either "direct" or "representative" Democracy, we have become a mirror imitation of
the Roman Republic.
Popular misconception admits this identification only insofar as it serves the ends of fascistcontrolled military-enforced tyrannical dictatorship. It claims that we are in the equivalent of
the "late " stages of the Roman Republic even now, rapidly approaching millennarian and
eschatological Empire.
If it had not squelched the Democracy of our "founding fathers" it would be portraying our
current government as equivalent to the Delian League of ancient Greece, and thus accomplish the
same pessimisim in the modern mind that our political ideals inevitably degenerate into
indifference to our slavery.
I have composed some posts from research on wikipedia regarding the actual nature of Greek
Democracy and the Roman Republic. Please bear with me as I introduce this brief history lection
before drawing a moral conclusion.

on Greek Democracy

benpadiah wrote:
Quote:
In 683BC populist tyrranoi had overthrown the basileus in Athens. In 594BC, the first
Tyrant, Peisistratos of Athens (607-528BC), appointed his lover, the poet Solon, the Archon over
Attica to subdue civil disorder in Cirrha over Salamis Island. Solon instituted the seisachehteia
ordinances, repealing most of the laws of Draco, and instituing a timokratia, where four classes of
property owners (the larger farm owners, hippeis or knights that owned their own smaller farms,
tillers or those who owned cattle and worked on the upper classes' farms, and the lowest class, the
thetes or manual laborers) paid in a rate of 6:3:1:0 taxes to Solon in return for their protection by
Peisistratos. Following the success of Solon's reforms in subduing the civil disorder rampant in
Attica, Peisistratos adopted the Solonian Constitution, introducing trial by a jury of class peers,
compulsory military service determined according to class, a Boule (council of 400 hereditary

nobles or, later, official representative chosen by lot from among the constituent citizens), the
aeropagus (a senate of former Archon Eponymous (chief magistrate), Polemarch (head of the armed
forces) and Archon Basileus (religious events coordinator) that served as a murder tribunal), and
introducing many civil laws governing debt and taxation. The tyrants of the Pisistratus family
ruled until 500BC, when the isonomia of Cleisthenes reformed the 400 member Boule under Solon
into the 500 member Boule over the ten demes. In the ten demes, official representatives were
chosen by lot, and in the Boule they proposed bills to the Dikasteria, courts comprised of 2015001 jurors per day, up to 500 from each of the ten demes, who then voted by casting a white stone
or a black stone on whether to reject, pass or ammend these bills. Once he had reorganised the
Boule from 400 under Solon to 500 in 508BC, Cleisthenes introduced the first bill, legislating
"ostracism" or exile for ten years any citizen judged by vote as having ambitions to overthrow the
democracy and set themselves up as a tyrant, was passed in 487BC.

on the Roman Republic

benpadiah wrote:
Quote:
Res publica usually refers to a thing that is not considered to be private property, but
which is rather held in common by many people. Taking everything together that is of public
interest leads to the connotation that "the" res publica in general equals "the" state.
The city of Rome itself stands on the banks of the river Tiber, very near the west coast of Italy. It
marked the border between the regions of Latium (the territory in which the Latin language and
culture was dominant) to the south, and Etruria (the territory in which the Etruscan language and
culture was dominant) to the north. According to Roman mythology, after the end of the Trojan
war, the Trojan prince Aeneas sailed across the Mediterranean Sea to Italy and founded the city of
Lavinium. His son Iulus later founded the city of Alba Longa, and from Alba Longa's royal family
came the twins Romulus and Remus (supposedly sons of the god Mars by Rhea Silvia), who went on
to found the city of Rome on April 21, 753 BC. Thus the Romans traced their origins back to the
Hellenic world. The Roman republic would expand outwards from this single city state.
In the beginning, Rome had kings. The tradition portrays these kings more as culture heroes than
as historical figures, each of them being credited with devising some aspect of Roman culture; for
example, Numa Pompilius devised Roman religion, and Ancus Martius the arts of war. There is,
however, general agreement that Rome did have a series of monarchs (some of whom were of
Etruscan origin; the influence of the Etruscans can still be seen on early Roman art and
architecture) and that these kings were displaced by the Roman aristocracy sometime around 500450 BC. Livy's version of the establishment of the Republic states that the last of the Kings of
Rome, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus ("Tarquin the proud") had a thoroughly unpleasant son, Sextus
Tarquinius, who raped a Roman noblewoman named Lucretia. Lucretia compelled her family to
take action by gathering her kinsmen, telling them what happened, and then killing herself. They
were compelled to avenge her, and led an uprising that expelled the royal house, the Tarquins, out
of Rome into refuge in Etruria. Lucretia's widowed husband Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus and her
brother Lucius Junius Brutus were elected as the first two consuls of the new Republic (Marcus
Junius Brutus who later assassinated Gaius Julius Caesar claimed descent from this first Brutus).
The traditional date of the revolution against the kings is 509 BC. The early consuls took over the
roles of the king with the exception of his high priesthood in the worship of Jupiter Optimus
Maximus at the sacred temple on the Capitoline Hill. For that duty the Romans elected a Rex
sacrorum - a "king of holy things". It is interesting to note that the Roman Rex Sacrorum was
forbidden membership in the Senate; one could not be a Senator and a Rex Sacrorum at the same
time. Republican Rome distanced even this vestigial "king" from any possibility of power. Until
the end of the Republic, the accusation that a powerful man wanted to make himself "Rex" - "King"
remained a career-shaking charge (Julius Caesar's assassins claimed that they were preserving

Rome from the re-establishment of a monarchy).
To replace the leadership of the kings, a new office was created with the title of consul. Initially,
the consuls possessed all of the king’s powers in the form of two men, elected for a one-year term,
who could veto each other’s actions. Later, the consuls’ powers were broken down further by
adding other magistrates that each held a small portion of the king’s original powers. First among
these was the praetor, which removed the Consuls’s judicial authority from them. Next came the
censor, which stripped from the consuls the power to conduct the census.
The Romans instituted the dictatorship. The dictator was given complete authority over all of
Rome’s civil and military matters and there was no appeal from his decisions. His power was so
absolute that the Romans only dared to appoint a dictator in times of severe emergencies, and the
sole thing that kept this dictator from becoming another king of Rome was his six-month term
limit.
The king's religious powers were given to two new offices: the Rex Sacrorum and the Pontifex
Maximus. The rex sacrorum was the de jure highest religious official for the Republic. His sole
task was to make the annual sacrifice to Jupiter, a privilege that had been previously reserved for
the king. The pontifex maximus, however, was the de facto highest religious official, who held
most of the king’s religious authority. He had the power to appoint all vestal virgins, flamens,
pontiffs, and even the rex sacrorum himself. By the beginning of the 1st Century BC, the rex
sacrorum was all but forgotten and the pontifex maximus given almost complete religious
authority over the Roman religion.
The Conflict of the Orders, also referred to as "the Struggle of the Orders," was a political
struggle between the plebeians (plebs) and patricians (patricii) of the ancient Roman Republic, in
which the plebeians sought political equality and achieved it in 287 BC, after two centuries of
strife. The relationship between the plebeians and the patricians sometimes came under such
strain that the plebeians would secede from the city, taking their families and movable
possessions, and set up camp on a hill outside the walls. Their refusal to cooperate any longer
with the patricians led to social changes. Only about 15 years after the establishment of the
Republic in 494 BC, plebeians seceded and chose two leaders to whom they gave the title Tribunes.
The plebeians took an oath that they would hold their leaders 'sacrosanct' - 'untouchable' during
their terms of office, and that a united plebs would kill anyone who harmed a tribune. The second
secession in 471 BC led to further legal definition of their rights and duties and increased the
number of tribunes to 10. The final secession ended in 287 BC and the resulting Lex Hortensia
gave the vote of the Concilium Plebis or "Council of the Plebeians" the force of law. It is important
to note that this force of law was binding for both.
The Roman assemblies were the Comitia Calata, the Comitia Curiata, the Comitia Centuriata, and
the Comitia Tributa and possessed ultimate legislative and judicial powers in the Roman Republic
and were also responsible for the election of magistrates. The Roman assemblies possessed
ultimate legislative powers, including the ability to pass ex post facto laws and bills of attainder.
They were also not deliberative assemblies: normal citizens neither debated nor proposed
legislation (only magistrates could propose legislation). The assemblies also possessed judicial
powers, some of which were transferred to permanent courts later in the Republic. In the later
Republic, a subset of the Comitia Tributa, the Concilium Plebis, gained the legislative powers of
the assemblies and became the favored legislative mechanism.
The honoured expression Senatus Populusque Romanus (abbreviated as SPQR), often used as an
indication for the Roman state, clearly testifies to the general perception that Rome was
legitimately ruled by the will of the people (in the assemblies) guided by the Senate, and under
their authority by the magistrates. Only when the principate was established—within the
republic, which was never abolished—did a single person, the Roman emperor, start to embody the

state politically and hence incarnate the maiestas of Rome.
The Comitia Calata was held under the presidency of the pontifex maximus. The meeting probably
took place in the Capitoline Hill in front of the Curia Calabra. The Comitia Calata and the Comitia
Curiata were the only assemblies recognised before the time of Servius Tullius. The assembly
consisted entirely of patricians, organized into curiae, and performed the following functions:
*
Announcements of the pontiffs concerning time keeping and nature of certain dates,
*
Inauguration of Flamines and the Rex Sacrorum, and
*
Witnessing testaments of patricians in order to avoid any disputes following the death of
the person in question.
The Comitia Curiata (Curiate Assembly) was the oldest Roman assembly after the Comitia Calata.
It consisted entirely of patricians organized in 30 curiae, which were voting units that each cast
one collective vote. This assembly originally was the only assembly which transacted business,
electing all magistrates, granting their imperium, and enacting laws.
The Comitia Centuriata (Centuriate Assembly) included both patricians and plebeians organized
into five economic classes (knights and senators being the First Class) and distributed among
internal divisions called centuriae. Membership in the Centuriate Assembly required certain
economic status, and power was heavily vested in the First and Second Classes. The Centuriate
Assembly met annually to elect the next year's consuls and praetors, and quinquennially (every 5
years) to elect the censors. It also sat to try cases of high treason (perduellio), although this
latter function fell into disuse after Lucius Appuleius Saturninus introduced a more workable
format (maiestas). A citizen's vote did not count in the Centuriate Assembly. Rather, the
individual's vote was counted within his century and determined the outcome of the century's
vote. Because only the first eighteen (and richest) centuries were kept to the nominal size of 100
members, members of those centuries exerted a disproportionate influence over the outcome of
votes. The Centuriate Assembly, originally a military assembly of knights, had to meet outside
the pomerium of Rome on the Campus Martius since no army was permitted inside the pomerium.
The Comitia Tributa (Tribal Assembly) included both patricians and plebeians distributed among
the thirty-five tribes into which all Roman citizens were placed for administrative and electoral
purposes. The vast majority of the urban population of Rome was distributed among the four urban
tribes, which meant that their votes were individually insignificant. Like the Centuriate
Assembly, voting was indirect, with one vote apportioned to each tribe. A subset of the Tribal
Assembly, called the Plebeian Council, legislated for the plebeians and lower classes and elected
the plebeian tribunes and aediles. Their plebiscites only had the force of law for the entire
Republic after 287 BC.
The traditional story, whose primary source is the first few books of Livy, is that the patricians
were the aristocrats of Rome, taking over when the kings were expelled and the Republic formed in
509 BC, while the plebeians were the "lower class". Initially, only patricians could hold
magistracies (such as the consulate), positions in the religious colleges, and sit in the Roman
Senate. However, the patrician clans abused their position, using the creditor's right of nexum to
take plebeian debtors into bondage and selling them as slaves, favoring patricians over plebeians
in court cases, and overriding the will of the Centuriate Assembly.
Plebeian responses included the establishment of the tribunes, whose authority to protect
plebeians was eventually accepted by the patricians, and the Council of Plebs (concilium plebis)
whose decisions were originally binding on plebeians only, but in 287 applied to all citizens. The
plebs convinced the patricians by engaging in secessio, the act of leaving the city and refusing to
participate until the patricians gave in. In 449 BC the decemvirs codified the law via the Twelve
Tables, but then their 11th Table forbade intermarriage between patricians and plebeians,

sharpening the distinction between the classes, and it was soon repealed by the Lex Canuleia of
445 BC.
According to traditional, semi-legendary historical accounts preserved in Livy, during the
earliest period of the Republic the laws were kept secret by the pontifices and other
representatives of the patrician class, and were enforced with untoward severity, especially
against the plebeian class. A plebeian named Terentilius proposed in 462 BC that an official legal
code should be published, so that plebeians could not be surprised and would know the law. For
several years the patricians opposed this request, but in 451 BC a Decemvirate, or board of ten
men, was appointed to draw up a code. They allegedly sent an embassy to study the legislative
system of the Greeks, particularly the laws of Solon, possibly in the Greek colonies of southern
Italy.
The laws of the Twelve Tables were not a comprehensive statement of all law; they are a sequence
of definitions of various private rights and procedures, similar to a bill of rights. For such an
important document, it is somewhat surprising that the original text has been lost. Like most
other primitive laws, they combine strict and rigorous penalties with equally strict and rigorous
procedural forms.
The final crisis in the struggle came in 287, when economically-stressed farmers demanded debt
relief from the Senate and were rebuffed. A secessio resulted in the Senate appointing the
plebeian Quintus Hortensius the elder as dictator, who solved the problem in a manner unknown
to us, then passed the lex Hortensia giving equal weight to the decrees of the Senate and the
Council of Plebs. Although individuals identified themselves as plebeian or patrician for the
remainder of the Republic and well into the Empire, and the patricians retained certain
priesthoods, there was no political difference between the orders.
During the early and middle Republic, the Roman Senate, highest in prestige and being composed
of the aristocratic, rich, and politically influential (it contained many ex-magistrates), was
predominant in the state. During the latter years of the Republic, a division developed within the
Senate with two factions arising: the Optimates and the Populares. The Optimates held to the
traditional forms of Roman government, while the Populares were those who used the fact that the
Plebeian Assembly was capable of passing binding laws (plebiscites) on the Republic, to pursue
political influence outside the Senate. Since the Senate controlled the finances of the state, this
would lead to conflicts between the Senate and the Plebeian Assembly. Many ambitious politicians
would use these conflicts to further their political career, advancing themselves as champions
either of "Roman tradition", or of "The People".
Optimates ('Good Men') were the aristocratic faction of the later Roman Republic. They wished to
limit the power of the popular assemblies and the Tribunes of the Plebs, and to extend the power
to the Senate, which was viewed as more stable and more dedicated to the well-being of Rome. In
particular, they were concerned with the the rise of individual generals who, using the tribunate,
the assemblies, and the brute force of their own soldiers could overpower the Senate iteslf. The
optimates favored the nobiles (noble families) and opposed the ascension of novi homines ("new
men", usually provincials, whose family had no former political experience) into Roman politics.
Populares ("Favoring the people", singular popularis) were aristocratic leaders in the late Roman
Republic who tended to use the peoples' assemblies in an effort to break the stranglehold of the
nobiles and optimates on political power.
Populare plans included some moving of Roman citizens to provincial colonies; expansion of
citizenship to communities outside of Rome and Italy; and modification of the grain dole and
monetary value. The populare cause reached its peak under the dictatorship of Julius Caesar, the
most avid leader of the populares. After the creation of the Second Triumvirate (43 BCâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;33 BC), the

cause of the populares was essentially destroyed.

Conclusion

benpadiah wrote:
So, we see that there are both distinct differences and distinct similiarities between Greek Golden
Age Democracy and the Roman Republic era.
The Roman Republic lasted from 509 (overthrow of the kings) to 44 (intallation of Caesar as
emperor) bce, or 465 orbits around the sun in total. Greek Democracy lasted only from 594
(installation of Solon as Archon of Attica) to 477 (initiation of the Delian League under Athens)
bce, or 117 orbits around the sun in total.
Athenian Democracy utilised round numbers (the Boule of 500 over the ten demes) at first, but
later switched to odd numbers (the 201-501 jurors). The Roman Republic utilised even numbers
(the original 30 farmers and 100 knights of the Assemblies) from 494bce on, but stopped using
odd numbers (the 35 gypsy tribes) in 287 bce, with the initiation of the Plebian Council.
From study of the Roman Republic, in his Discourses, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote the first treatise
of the common era on the "natural state" of man, describing them as essentially "like animals." It
would not be for several hundred more years that John Locke would be able to study the rarer
historical descriptions at the time of Athenian Greek Democracy, and he would describe the
"natural state" of man as one of inherent freedom to act of their own accord. From Machiavelli the
framers such as James Madison adopted their stance on "representative" Democracy, and from
Locke framers such as Thomas Jefferson adopted their stance on "direct" Democracy. However, by
the time of the framers only "direct" or "representative" forms of Democracy were considered just
and noble in themselves, serving the ends of the greatest number of people at once. The
Machiavellian hard-line on Republicanism being the only way to topple Principalities
(aristocratic dictatorships) which had resurfaced during the French Revolution had been, by the
time of the American revolutionary war, dampened in definition to accord with Locke's "social
compact" and idealistic "human nature" based more on Greek Democracy.
America was never intended to be a "representative" Republic. It was framed in its constitution as
a "representative" Democracy, but it has degenerated into a federal republic, where special
interest groups such as the military industrial complex, big businesses and the intelligence
community constitute a fascist oligarchy hidden within our political system of government. These
special interest groups fund both political parties' nominees' campaigns for every office from the
commander-in-chief right down to my local commissioner of education. These "special interest
groups" comprise the de facto, "shadow" government of the united states now.
In ancient times, according to Aristotle, there were three types of government (monarchy,
aristocracy and democracy) that would each inevitably degenerate into a corrupt form of itself
(tyranny, oligarchy and what Machiavelli later labeled "licentiousness," meaning graft and
bribery). Monarchy being the first was considered the most natural, but most undesireable, to the
ancient mind, followed by aristocracy (or control by land-owning vassals) and finally Democracy
the most ideal and desireable of all.
According to modern misinterpretation, American "representative" Democracy has followed the
same exact course as Athenian "direct" democracy becoming the Roman "representative" republic.
However, as we have now seen this is not the case. According to actual history, the Roman Republic
always bore a fundamental difference to its Athenian Democratic predecessor.
By having only even numbers of delegates representing the Roman citizens, the Romans were able
to maintain their Republic for much longer than the Greeks maintained "direct" Democracy

through using odd numbers of delegates. This is because the Athenian Democracy began as an
attempt to thwart crime (to quell an uprising in Attica) within an existing tyranny (hence a third
party legislating over a dispute between two), while the Roman Republic began as a civic
experiment (replacing monarchial monopoly with dually held executive official positions ala
Romulus and Rhemus). While resolution is built into Democracy, perpetual conflict is built into a
Republic.
The goal of creating a peace, as opposed to the goal of sustaining and lengthening, or maintaining
and enforcing, an existing peace was the root difference at the origin of Democracy and the
Republic, respectively. Once peace was achieved, Democracy (like Marx's Dictaotrship by the
Proletariat, or the original concept of the tyrant) was designed to "wither away." However, for a
Republic to function prosperously, there must be perpetual competition with no conflict
resolution that does not "arm both sides," and thus perpetuate the conflict.
What do I mean when I talk of the importance of the even and the odd forms of government? What
can such a minute and inconsequential sum as the single individual do to offset the whole course
of world events, to shape history; what can one man do? In a Republic they can do nothing. In
either a "direct" (by popular vote) or by "representative" (so elected officials) Democracy, one
person can be the lynch-pin of the entire apparatus.
Consider these primary differences between the Greek Democracy and the Roman Republic: one
was founded to bring peace, one to maintain it; one was odd, one was even. Apply these to the
modern American political system, where the two-party system is used as a fulcrum for leverage
by corporate "private interests" against the popular government by the American people
envisaged for us by our "founding fathers." Let me know what comes to you, please. I didn't write
all this just for it to fall silent. Thanks for any replies.

-ben
alea iacta est.
On January tenth, 49 BCE, Gaius Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and began the civil war that
would transform the corrupt Roman Republic into the morally bankrupt Roman Empire. Of course,
at that time, it would be impossible for even such a great tactitian as Julius Caesar, the most
reknowned Proconsul, to predict. Pompey and the other Senators argued that Caesar should
relinquish his office as his term was up and he could not be re-nominated while in absentia in
Gaul. That is why, when Caesar crossed the Rubicon on January tenth, 49 BCE, he said Alea Iacta
Est, meaning "the die is cast." However, how do we date this event? We are using a calendar in the
"western business world" (ie. modern western civ.) called the Gregorian calendar. The Gregorian
calendar was reformed in the sixteenth century by a pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
However before this the form of calendar in use, throughout the early Rennaissance and the Dark
Ages, was the Julian calendar. It was invented by Julius Caesar.
Following the civil war, the death of Pompey at the hands of a Roman attendent to Ptolemy, the
rival of Cleopatra, and following Julius Caesar's return from conquering Ptolemy's enemies in
Egypt and his own in Greece with Cleopatra as his de facto bride, yet only four short years after
Caesar crossed the Rubicon, the Julian calendar was implemented. Within a year Caesar was dead,
assassinated by his own friend Brutus and sixty Liberatore senators and conspirators. Two years
after his murder, Caesar would be named "the Divine Julius" (Divus Iulius), and his heir, his son
with Cleopatra, Gaius Octavian "Augustus" Caesar, would be declared "Son of a God" (Divi filius).
Of course, in his own life Caesar himself rejected even the title of 'Rex' (king), replying "Rem
Publicam sum!" (I am the Republic!). Although he accepted such titles as Pater Patriae ("Father of
the Fatherland") and prefect of morals (praefectus morum), when his chief general and secondary
heir, Mark Antony, attempted to put a diadem on his head one month to the day before his

assassination, Caesar refused, and said, "I will not be king of Rome. Jupiter alone is King of the
Romans."
Although it is because of Caesar's assassination on the unlucky "Ides of March" of 44 BCE, even
the date of this year has been adjusted to fit the Christian calendar used by Pope Gregory.
Obviously, 44 BCE, with the exception of some Pythagoreans, was not called such at that time.
Instead, 44 BCE was year two of the Julian calendar. The "zero year" of the Julian calendar was
the Gregorian year 46 BCE. Just as the birth of Christ is commonly reckoned by modern historians
of that era to have occured in 4 BC (the year of Herod's death according to Josephus), the entire
Julian calendar was back-dated for its point of origin to the founding of Rome (anno urbis
conditae). Before the Julian reforms to the Roman calendar, the calendar of Rome is thought to
have derived from a Greek lunar form. The discrepancy between the original Roman calendar and
the reformed Julian calendar was, by the Gregorian year 46 BCE, off by about 120 days. When
Caesar implimented the Julian calendar in 46 BCE, that year was counted as lasting an extra 120
days. The Roman calendar year before the year 46 BCE Gregorian was 355 days long. The Julian
year after the year 46 BCE Gregorian was 365 days long. The year 46 BCE Gregorian itself was 445
days long.
To commemorate the year in which the Julian calendar was implimented, which would have been
called then by Romans, 708 AUC, Julius Caesar built a temple to Venus Genetrix ("Mother Venus")
and held a festival in her honour on September 26th. Of course, the date given as Sept. 26 of the
intercalary "leap" or "zero" year for the Julian calendar's implimentation can obviously be
reckoned different ways according to different calendars. The Julian calendar was 365 days long
for three years and 366 every fourth. But the 355 days of the prior Roman calendar were already
divided into the twelve months, and these were divided each by a calend (New Year), Ides or
Nones. The dates on which the Ides and Nones (beginnings and ends of months) occured alternated
on either the fifteenth or the thirteenth and the seventh or the fifth of the month. In other words,
the names of the months were the same, but their beginning and end dates differed. "In March,
July, October, May / The IDES fall on the fifteenth day / The NONES the seventh; all besides /
Have two days less for Nones and Ides."
Nonetheless, the Ides (the fifteenth) of March, 44 BCE Gregorian (710 AUC Julian), was measured
by the year of 365.25 days implimented two years prior by Julius Caesar himself. However,
secretly, among the conspirators, the Ides would have meant something very different. On 46 BCE
Gregorian (708 AUC Julian), the "last year of confusion," the day of 445 days, dates after the Ides
of the month counted down towards the start of the next month, so the extra days had the effect of
raising the initial value of the count for the day after the Ides. Thus, the Ides, the beginning date
of the month, usually reckoned as the eighth day following the Nones, which marked the end of the
last month. Between the Nones and the Ides on the Julian "leap" year, the days counted up (1,2,3...
etc), but between the Ides and Nones the days counted down (3,2,1... etc). Therefore, when the
Liberatores thought of the Ides, they thought of the number of days remaining between the Ides
and the next Nones as being increased from 8 to 18, by adding ten extra days every month to
correct the calendar.
Therefore, by killing Caesar on the Ides of March, the Liberatores were reacting to Caesar's
seeming assumption of God-like status (it was Jupiter, or rather Zeus, who, in the originally Greek
mythology, slew Chronus, the titan-god of time) by correcting the calendar. Consider that, for
example, in 45 BCE, the first 365 day year of the restored Julian calendar (essentially the
Pythagorean year one), and, in fact, only 363 days prior to his assassination, on March 17, 709
AUC, Caesar was named "Dictator Perpetuus," dictator for life. This single event began the Roman
empire. So, to commemorate that event the following year, however on the Ides to underscore the
sore-spot of the increase of 10 days following the Ides of the two-years past "leap" year of Julian
calendar reform, Caesar was betrayed and assassinated by young Servilius Casca, who played the
strange part of trying to forewarn Caesar's colleague, Mark Antony the night before, as well as

being the one to actually slit Caesar's throat. It is not surprising that, when failing to kill Caesar
with one blow, Casca cried out to his fellow conspirators in Greek.
Clearly all these events were dispersed as signs of religious reflections in the affairs of men of
certain specific astronomic alignments, and the practise of discerning men's fates by observing
these alignments (astrology) was an ancient and accepted craft evolved from Sumeria. Caesar
himself was, according to Shakespeare, forewarned to "beware the Ides of March" by a Greek
oracle. However the result of the dispersion of the astrological meaning of the origin of the Roman
Empire throughout the conquered provinces under the expanded rule of the Empire was largely an
increase in Hellenic-Hebraic Gnosticism to the east and its Coptic equivalents to the south. Jesus
Christ, as a literary figure, arose to symbolise the astral-logical self of Caesar, the reincarnation
amongst the people of "Great Caesar's Ghost," the so-called "Holy Ghost" or the Shekinah
(Presence) of the Most High, later called the "I AM" Presence by St. Germain. Gnosticism largely
attempted to explain the miracles performed by Christ in the New Testament Gospels using known
sciences of the times. Many of these appear arcane and alchemical to us today, since these
sciences deal with knowledge that has, in the intervening Dark Ages, become more or less lost to
us now. This novel approach also eventually personified the Roman Caesar as the Anti-Christ, or
dual opposite with Jesus, the "true King of the Jews." 666 is the gematria of NRU QSR, Hebrew for
Nero Caesar, the Augustine Emperor of the time of the composition of the Revelation of St. John of
Patmos, the so-called Christian "Apocalypse."
Here we see the meaning of the saying "Alea Iacta Est," the die is cast, for from that one event
have followed all the others that have determined the shape and form of western civilisation since
then. The subsequent Papal Caesars and Holy Roman Emperors hunted down and exterminated the
desposyni descendents of Jesus, and the Dark Ages began with the conversion of Constantine by
the vision of Christ (chi-rho) on the (ambigram) cross, bearing the inscription, again, in Greek, En
Touto Nika (meaning "with(in) this win"), which is often translated into the more familiar Latin:
In hoc signo vinces (meaning "in this sign thou shalt conquer"). Truly the quote, whether rightly
attributable to pope Leo X or not, "this myth of Christ has served us well." Actually this quote
originates from a contemporary satire by John Bale (1495-1563), The Pageant of the Popes: "For
on a time when a cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a
very contemptuous answer saying: All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of
Christe hath ben to us and our companie." However, as Eminem says, "alot of truth is said in jest."
Truly, truly, truly, Juliet, a Capulet, and Romeo, a Montegue, were star-crossed lovers. Romeo
belonged to the Merovingian line of deposed Jewish kings, and Juliet to the line of Augustinian
Popes, the Catholic Caesars. But that is just a story-book story. Now, the times are at hand once
again. It has been two millennium since the times around which these events occured, and it is a
fact that the Mayan culture of South America post-dated its own calendar to end at this time now,
many centuries after the fall of the Maya themselves. I would suggest that, if you haven't already
been, you should all start paying attention to the heavens at hand. For, just as the Hebrew
Sanhedrin installed to depose the Maccabbeean Levite Essenes offered Christ as the Passover
sacrifice in honour of Rome, so too have the events of 9-11 in America mirrored those of Germany
during the early years of the NAZI third Reich. However what took the NAZIs nearly eleven years
to accomplish would now be able to be acocmplished in a shorter span of time, possibly as few as
only six years. And I do not mean this in terms of the mass exterminations of the Holocaust; I
mean in the indoctrination into a new generation of a false idealogy with a re-written history.
Much of what we are seeing now was predicted following the end of the second World War by
visionary historian HG Wells, author of "the Open Conspiracy" and "The Fate of Man" on the
subject of what would likely be the next strategy to follow the end of the, then only dawning, Cold
War.
Whether we like it or not, we all have a place in this history.

:: Book IV ::
Pesherim (or
the ethics of mysticism)
(ongoing work in progress)
1) introduction to the method
2) historical introduction
3) the Gospel of Salome
4) the Gospel of Judas
5) the Gospel of Pilate

Pesherim
introduction to the method
Remember, as
benpadiah wrote:
to reiterate, the purpose of Pesher is three-fold.
1) the practical: examination of the writing style for timeless applicability.
2) the literal: comparison of this writing style to others of its kind.
3) the direct: exposition of the interpretation derived from doing this.
leading to
4) the dogmatic: the expression of the interpretation.
so far we have played level 1 pesher (looking at only one text in itself) and level 2
pesher (comparing several different texts). I am about to teach you how to play level
3 pesher. Following that I will demonstrate level 4.
level three pesher means to explain what the entire text, comprised in this case of
only the prior six "pesher" passages I provided, means as a whole. To do this, you may
have to shuffle up the pesherim (plural of pesher passages) until they begin to make
sense. For our example, I have placed the preceding posts in chronological order
below:
II wrote:
There was once a young prince on a journey home after studying in a far away land.
He came to a cross-road that he did not recognise. It had been built while he was
gone. The sign at the cross-road said: "Here is a road that is longer, and that leads
through the urban district. Here is a road that is shorter, but that provides a more
scenic view." Thinking thus that either road would take the same amount of time to
get to the castle of his father the king at the centre of the kingdom, the prince was
at a quandry. Should he go the more scenic way, and enjoy the countryside of his
youth, now removed by memory? Or should he pass through the business fare, and
see what has become new while he has been growing independently. The prince
decided to take the road less traveled. He went into the countryside because he
wanted to live deliberately. So, after deliberating over the sign, the Prince went
into the country, where he immediately met his death by bandits, who had become
poor by failed business and grown to hate the wealthy.

V wrote:
Two stone masons were building a house. One walled himself in and one walled
himself out. The one who walled himself out, because he had built the wall with the
other one, could not tear the wall down alone. So the mason went to seek help.
As he went out, he encountered a party of strangers. They told him they were
desperately in search of their prince, who they explained had left their kingdom to
study as a stone mason abroad. Upon seeing the mason, they rejoiced greatly, for
they said he looked exactly like the prince. They explained to him, "your
highness, the king is dead, long live the king," meaning, "come with us and you can
rule our kingdom."
However the mason, being a good and honest person, told them he would not go

along with this ruse. He insisted they come back and help him rescue his fellow
mason from behind the wall. However they grew haughty, and explained, "if you
will not do this thing for us, why should we do this thing for you?"
The mason searched high and low, but he could not find anyone else who was
willing to help. Finally he returned to the party, who were gathered around the
ediface the two masons had built. He begged them to help him. He finally agreed to
return to the kingdom and to rule as the king, if only they would help him rescue
his fellow mason from behind the wall.
Then the party accepted him and he rejoiced. However they still refused to help
him tear down the wall. He demanded an explanation, and so they gave him one by
saying this: "the prince of our kingdom came to your country to become a common
mason. He knew his father would die before he would be able to return. He hated
his father, and he hated his kingdom. He discovered news of his father's graven
illness. So he sent us to contract with his master for an ediface to be built by two
masons. One would work on it from inside, and one would work on it from outside.
He agreed to be assigned to work on it from the inside. You see, goodly mason, we
cannot help you tear down this ediface, because it was us who commissioned it to
be built. It is the grave of the prince of our kingdom."
Then the Mason understood the meaning of "the king is dead, long live the king."
Then he returned with them to rule his kingdom. He became a wise ruler, and grew
very old in the service of God.

VI wrote:
In early times the elders of one clan met. "Go north," they told one. "Go south,"
they told another. "Go east," was told a third. "Go west," the fourth was told. "Stay
here," said the last. All went forth, were fruitful, and multipllied. They
remembered the clan and met again and again, each time sending forth by the plan
of the first meeting. Finally, the Northerners had filled the whole North,
Southerners the whole South, Easterners and Westerners filled the East and West,
and the eldest clan claimed the centre-lands, and all the world was bountiful, and
all the land was full.

III wrote:
Twin Princes were crossing a bridge to return to the Castle of their father, the
king, at the centre of the kingdom. They did not know the strength of the bridge,
and they were travelling with a large caravan. They wanted to make sure what they
carried with them would precede themselves safely across, and so, to test the
bridge, they sent out two elephants. The two elephants made it safley across the
bridge, and then back again. The princes then sent their cargo over the bridge, and
it went safely. Then the two princes themselves went across the bridge, but as they
were crossing the bridge broke apart and fell away beneath them.
The twin princes fell into the river below. One of them swam upstream until he
came to the source, and the other one was carried downstream and over a waterfall.
The caravan that accompanied them all followed the prince downstream, and found
his body on the shore of the ocean dead. Soon, though, the second prince returned,
riding on the two elephants from before. "Listen," he said, "for I have crossed the
river of death. At the source, I saw my brother under the water, and now I have
found him returned from beneath the waves ashore. As I know the river runs to the
sea, so shall I raise my brother up. And he raised the body up and it rode the
second elephant, and they all entered into the city of the castle of the king, the

father of the two princes.
Hearing news of the return of his two sons, the king sent the queen to meet them.
She met them halfway, and found one dead. She returned with them to the castle,
and, seeing the queen's grief, the king saw that one of his sons had died. When he
learned that this had happened crossing the border into his kingdom, the king rent
his shirt. But the remaining prince said, "no, look. I bring good tidings." He then
showed the king and the queen the queen what the caravan carried with them, that
had been so important the two princes were willing to risk their lives for it.
And the cargo was the wife of the dead prince, and their daughter, and the wife of
the prince who had survived, and their son. "For I saw my brother beneath the
waves," the prince explained. At this the king became full of understanding.
Passing understanding on to the queen, the king became wise. And, growing old,
the king died. And at the end of three generations the kingdom had known no war.

VI wrote:
In later times, the elders of the five tribes met again. They saw that the
Northerners and the Southerners, the East and West, and the eldest clan filled up
all the world. Now, they decided, it had been long enough where they all were. So
the Northerners began to migrate South, and the Southerners North. Those who had
travelled East travelled West, and those settled in the West resettled in the East.
But the tribe in the centre remained to remember the plan laid down by the
ancients, and bear witness to the success of their later modification of it. And all
were fruitful and multiplied.

IV wrote:
There were two kings. One had very high expectations of his son, the prince. The
other had no expectations of his daughter, the princess. When the prince and
princess were married, the king, father of the princess celebrated greatly, but the
king, father of the prince, lamented. The king, father of the princess, asked the
king, father of the prince, why he lamented. The king, father of the prince,
answered him, thus:
"Had your daughter, of whom you had no expectations, but been a son, then my son,
of whom I expect the best, could have been tested in his manhood by battle, and
surely would have excelled all the further in his victory over your incompetent
indifference. Instead my son is half the man he could be, and the chance for him to
fill the vacuum of your fatherly authority and kingly duty is utterly wasted. You
ask me why I lament? It is at seeing you celebrate greatly. Today pays only to your
ignorant indifference, and you celebrate that alone in addition to the nuptuals of
our kingdoms. To the same degree, I lament."
At the the king, father of the princess, lamented greatly, which raised the spirits
of the king, father of the prince. To him, it meant he had won the whole kingdom in
battle by himself, and proved his son, the prince, would grow up to be twice the
king he was himself.

Here is an alternative "translation" :
Quote:
There were two kings. One had very high expectations for his son, the prince. The
other held nothing over the head of his daughter, the princess. When the prince
and the princess eloped, the princess-king rejoiced much, but the prince-king

lamented. The princess-king asked the prince-king why he lamented. The princeking answered this way:
"Had your daughter, for whom you cared not, but been a son, then my son, for whom
I put forth all, could have girded his loins in combat, and, moreoever, would have
easily ousted your unwise blindness. Instead my son is half the man he could be,
and the chance for him to grow into the gap of your paternal archetype and regnal
role is now permanently void. You ask me why I lament? It is due to seeing your
rejoice so much. All that has been benefitted today is your foolish shortsightedness, and in that there is you alone, and then besides that there is our
kingdoms' union. To that percent, I lament."
At that the princess-king hung his head and wept, which reversed the visage of the
prince-king. To him, he had bested his rival at word-play, and therefore he proved
to himself that his son would be greater even than he could have grown through
war.

VI wrote:
Now, the elders of the 12 tribes meet. They plan as their ancient ancestors
planned. "Our tribe 1 blood is in land 6; tribe 2, 7; etc. Now the South and West
have returned to the centre, and the North and the East are at the opposite centre.
Now this is the third age. Let us travel across time as we have around the world.
Thos who travel South, go East, those East, North; those who travelled North, West
and those West, South." And thus began the Fourth Age.

I wrote:
There was a kingdom, and beside it another. The two kings of the two kingdoms
were twin brothers. There was a woman who called them both to conference one day,
and spoke to them about combining their kingdom. They both fell in love with the
woman, and then they went to war with each other. They were at war for so many
generations that eventually only a small faction from each nation remained, and
the night before they met in battle, the two twin kings met with one another in a
conference tent. The one king said to the other king: "you were doing my will all
along, and you still are, now I command thee: die nobly." The following morning the
demoralised king's troops met with their brethren in the ideal kingdom and lost
their lives in bloodshed.

So we see, in chronological order, the pesher would occur in a different order than
they were initially presented, in this case: V,III,IV,II,I with pesher VI interspersed
throughout.
Level 4 pesher is the easiest, and the most fun, after the previous three levels. For
level 4, all you have to do is draw a diagram explaining how the pesherim relate to
one another. In other words, just draw a simple picture showing how you chose to
organise your interpretations. For example, I had chosen chronological order, so I
drew the following diagram to explain the preceding pesherim.

Anyway, that completes the instructions on how to play Pesher. Pesher is the method
I have used to create all my Gnostic diagrams, and it is also an informations-systems
theory methodology for extrapolating flow charts from data sets. The Game Pesher is
therefore now copyright 2006 the Illuminati-Order in the name of the Order that
owns this internet site where I now post this.
I, Jon Gee, have created this game, and I hope you will all enjoy playing.

historical introduction
According to Josephus, in "The Jewish Wars," the name of the King of greater Judea in the early
first century was Agrippa the younger, son of Agrippa who had reigned over the whole kingdom of
Israel, north of Judea. It was Agrippa the elder who had commissioned the fortification around
Jerusalem following the assassination of Caligula. Agrippa the elder had reigned "three years as
king, following three years as tetrarch." According to Josephus, Cypros II was the wife of the
elder Agrippa, and the names of their other children, all daughters, were Berenice, Mariamne and
Drusilla.
Now, according to the Apocryphal Acts of Peter, the Apostle Peter was actually the "Virgin"
Mary's father, however what we can ascertain from this is not that Peter was the grandfather of
Christ, who was born of a Virgin, but that, insofar as Mary was titular rather than nominal, the
"Mary" here referred to is actually Mary Magdalene, who would eventually, following her period
of "Virginity" go on to become the wife of Jesus, the "most-favoured of all Christ's Apostles."
According to Laurence Gardner, the title "Mary" was given to the wife of the Davidic (kingly
Levite) lineage, while the title "Elisabeth" was applied to the wife of the heir of the Zadokite
(High Priest) dynasty. "That is why," explains Gardner, "John the Baptist's mother is called
Elizabeth in the Gospels and why Jesus's mother was Mary."
Whereas the titles "Mary" and "Elisabeth" (from Elisheba) were Jewish in origin, they became
corrupted in Josephus' writings to their equivalent common-names in Latin. "Mary/Martha," the
wife of the “father” or Melchizedik High Priest became "Mariamne;" "Elisabeth/Salome," the wife
of "Thunder," the “son” or Gabriel Chief-Priest, became "Berenice;" and "Magdala" (meaning
"tower"), the wife of "Lightning," the “spirit” or Abiathar/Jairus Prophet, became "Drusila"
(meaning "Dragon").
Likewise, in cross-referencing Josephus, we have to take into account a variety of titles being
applied to the same person at various different times. For example, Cyrus, whom Gardner cites as
"Mary Magdala's" literal father, is equivalent to "Simon," also called variously "Simon Zelotes,"
"Simon the Essene," "Simon Magus,” "Simon Peter," as well as "Antipas" or "AntiPater II."
Agrippa I, as Antipater II, and his own “twin” brother, “Alexander-Aristobulus I,” were both
themselves the sons of a “Mariamne” and a “Herod.” Antipater II, as Agrippa I, was also the
“father” of "Agrippa II" and "Alexander-Aristobolus II.” All of these names in turn would have
inherited the title "Herod," just as the title "Caesar" was passed on by succession following its
original holder. The title "Herod" was indicative of the Hasmonean or Maccabbean household.
The identity, thus, of "Mary Magdala's" literal father was Shimeon who was, at the time of her
birth, the Abiathar Jairus Prophet, just as Jesus’ birth was heradled by the Qumran Community
"Gabriel" (or Chief Priest) who was, at the time of Jesus’ and James’ births, the same Simeon or
Simon. The term "Peter" is derived from the latin "Pater" meaning "father," denoting the Essene
High Priest, referred to privvily as "Joseph" during the period of procreative leave. Shimeon,
thus, was the "father" of both the bride (Mary) and groom (Jesus). Jesus would eventually fulfill
Simon’s own original station as the Abiathar Prophet of the Essene exiles at Qumran, however by
the time that could occur, Shimeon himself had ascended to the position of High Priest.
At the time of Jesus' and his brother's births, Simeon was the Chief Priest and Zacharias was the
High Priest (the Michael-Zadok or Melchizedek). By the time, however, of Jesus’ and his wife's
"first marriage" (or first conception), the Chief Priest was John the Baptist, also called James the
Just, who was Jesus' twin brother, called "Thomas" and "Didymus;" while the Abiathar Jairus
Prophet was Jonathan or Nathaniel Annas, derivitive of the Ananus Sanhedrin of Jerusalem
Sadducees (anti-Roman separatists). While Simon, the Davidic "Father," had been a Pharisee, a
Zealot and a Qumran Essene as Jairus Prophet, Jonathan was a Saducee of Jerusalem and the
youngest Hasmonean (Herodian) Maccabee.

When Jonathan married Simon's daughter, his community “sister” (his cousin by paternal-uncle),
he assumed the title of Joshua, meaning "the younger father," for the woman he married, then
called "Mary Magdala," was originally planned to be married to her other communal "brother,"
(her younger half-brother by their father Cyrus), Jesus' community “twin,” James the Just, known
also as John the Baptist (the cousin of Jesus) who was Gabriel Chief Priest under Simeon. In this
capacity her identity is recorded in the Gospels first as Salome, wife of Prince “Herod” Philip, the
designated Elisabeth, as was an “Elisabeth” the mother of James the Just; then later as Mary, wife
of Jesus, just as a “Mary” before her had been the mother of Anti-Pater, Shimeon Peter.
Because Christ and Magdala conceived while Jonathan was still only the Jairus Prophet; and
because James, whom, as Chief Priest, out-ranked his younger twin-brother in the Qumran
community, had been engaged to Salome previously; and because Shimeon-Zelotes was still the
reigning Davidic Kingly Levite High Priest it was conspired to put Christ to death. On this, the
records of Jospehus are not at odds with those of the Gospels. Jospehus simply records these
characters by the latin names: Simon he calls "Agrippa I Antipater II;" James "Agrippa II;" Jesus
he calls "Alexander-Aristobolus II;” and “Magdala” he calls, respectively, "Mariamne, Berenice
and Drusila."
There is ample evidence that the Qumran Essenes backed James, whom they hailed as "the Teacher
of Righteousness," and rejected Jesus as "the Wicked Priest," Jonathan "Cumanus," “Belial” and
“the Great Beast.” The fact that James the Just, as Joseph Ha-Rama-Theo (or "High Priest of God"),
survived to raise the son of his younger, twin-brother, Jesus, with James’ own fiancee, is amply
recounted by sources in Britain and north western Europe, while the flight of Mary Magdala with
Jesus’ and her daughter, Sirac (for Sarah, a title of a young woman not yet of pubescent age), first
through Egypt and then into southern France, is amply recorded in those regions as well. As to
the actual crucifixion of Christ, it is said that it was ordered by Caiphas, or Simon, but that it was
actually James, the twin brother of Jesus, who was crucified.
Following the ordeal, Rabbi Shimeon-Pater began to call himself Saul, after the last king of the
Davidic line before the beginning of the Babylonian captivity, and later Paul, a combination of his
titles as Pope (Jerusalem community “Jospeh,” or father) and King (Herod Maccabee of the
Davidic-Levite succession). James, as has been stated, travelled extensively with his nephew, who
was also called Joshua, again the title of a young man not yet of age. Yeshuah continued to preach
in the early Christian Churches, sometimes under his brother's name - James or Jacob; and
sometimes refered to simply as "the Word," meaning the title of God, that is, Christ. He lived to
see old age, but was killed at Massada, where he was called "Marcion" in Josephus, and was buried
beside his bride in southern France.
The recounting of these events written by Mary has come to be called the Nag Hammadi "library,"
which is all written by one author, although it's current arrangement is exactly backwards to its
chronological composition. The recounting by James the Just became the Essene "Dead Sea Scrolls"
of Qumran. The recounting by Simon-Peter, who became Paul, was recorded by Pliny the elder and
the younger, and has come down to us now as the "New Testament," which, combined with the
Hebrew Torah and the teachings of Simon-Pater as Flavius Josephus, comprise the entire history
of the original priesthood of Seth, son of Adam, until its end, with the death of James the Just and
the destruction of the Second Temple, and the death of the last prophet, Jonathan Annas, called
Jesus Christ, the final King of all Israel.

THE EPSITLE OF SALOME, WIFE OF JAMES, BROTHER OF JESUS
"Bring me the ability to make prophecy of James the Just, known as John the Baptist. Let his love
for me pluck out his tongue, and let him speak no more in exile of the Messianic age.
His exile to Qumran, called Damascus, on the Dead Sea, has driven the brother of my true love
mad, and he speaks only of his brother as the coming Messiah. Would they were not twins, we
could just kill them both.
Let me tell you, honorable Pontius, of a dream that I had. In this dream you spoke to Jesus, and
questioned him, was he the king of the jews? He said no, and this means his older brother, James,
my husband, was still alive. You questioned him again, was he then the Messiah? He said that is
what they called him, but his lying tongue meant no. This answer confused you in my dream, so let
it not confuse you in real life, Honorable Pilate. Here the dream ended, but you will know what
must be done when this glorious time will come.
If James is robbed of speach, as Herod has robbed him of the status to which he is heir, then he
cannot return to the Temple, and enter the Holy of Holies, and speak the divine name of God. We
will make a Malkah of their High Priest. We will make of him what he has made of me.
Now, I tell you, I love Jesus, with all my heart. For it was by my actions that he has learned his
teachings, and it was the loss of my love that drove him to spread his message, and it will be my
return to his side that will mark his downfall, and when we are married, then James will climb to
the top of the temple, light it on fire, and be stoned from on high and fall to his death amongst the
flames.
This is the prophecy of Salome, whom you will come to know as Mary, the Tower, the Mother of the
Christian Church.â&#x20AC;?

THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS SICARIOT
EVENTS OF THIS DRAMA:
Here begins the Secret Vision that Jesus showed to Judas Iscariot during 10 moments on the night
of Passover.

PREREQUISITES OF THIS DRAMA:
In the times when the Word, Logos, appeared upon earth, he performed miracles that proved the
inevitability of the Day of Redemption for all humanity. Though some existed in their correct
means, and did the will of their Righteousness, that is, true justice, others were distracted over
cliffs, and so, because true crimes still occured, the Council of the 12 Apostles (the Essene
Community of Qumran) were assembled. The Word began to speak through them about hitherto
ineffable mysteries and what would come of it all and what were its ends. Often the Word did not
appear to his disciples as the Word, but could be found wondering among them like a child.

SCENE 1A:
JESUS LEADS THE MESSIAHNIC BANQUET
(On the night of Passover, Jesus was eaves-dropping on the Apostles while they sat in session, and
he entered among them and found them passing around the sacrifical sacrement, all sitting down
and whispering secret verses they had long memorised to themselves beneath their breath, and he
laughed.)
12 APOSTLES:
"Stranger, why are you laughing at our pious observance of the peace offering? We are performing
this rite properly."
JESUS:
"I am not laughing AT you. Just, you aren't performing this rite by your own choice, but because
it is your calling, because it is thus - through the sacrifical sacrement - the most efficient way
for you to play out your roles, not for your own sakes, but because it is for the Greater Good."
12 APOSTLES:
"Master, you are tuly just in Righteousness and fit to be the Word of all our One True God."
JESUS:
"What makes you think you know me? It is written, "you shall neither know the date nor the time
when Redemption shall be resurrected."

SCENE 1B:
THE ARCHON OF THE APOSTLES
(When the Council of the 12 Apostles heard this, they blushed and their cheeks grew hot and
turned the flushed hue of a rose as blood engorged them pumping heavily from their hearts.)
JESUS (observing their curious coyness):
"Why has my quotation of a scriptural verse got you all stirred up? As surely as your God is now
within you, so it is the same God that is also within me, and so, with that, I have stirred up coals
in your deepest and most shadowed of corners. Yes, well then, anyone who is brave enough let
them stand up to my eye to prove they are the truthful prototype of humanity, the ideal person."
12 APOSTLES:
"Any of us can do that who so chooses to."

(But their spirits could not be lifted up above the one who'd spoken the Word. So Judas Iscariot
stood up to him, but Judas could not catch Jesus' line of sight directly with his own eye. A
shadowy mask stretched out across Judas' bowing face.)
JUDAS:
"I know Who you are and Where you are from. You are from the imperishable realm of Barbelo, the
"feminine intuition" of Sophia called Shekinah. But I won't bow to say the name of He Who Sent
You."

SCENE 1C:
JESUS AND JUDAS CONSPIRE
JESUS (knowing Judas means to share something from his personal point of view):
"Step off over here, away from the others, and I shall explain to you the manifold miracles of this
infallible paradise. It may be possible for you to come to some understanding of it even, but you'll
have to grieve a great deal, for someone else will replace you when you will be called, in order
that 12 Apostles can still convene as is demanded of them by our One True God."
JUDAS:
"When will you tell me these things? When do you believe Redemption will come?"
(But with these words, Jesus disappeared.)

SCENE 2A:
JESUS' APOCALYPSE TO THE APOSTLES
(In the gloaming rafter shadows, the Apostles overheard Jesus in the next room, answering back
and forth with the Word as well as they could Understand it.)
APOSTLES:
"Master, where have you gone and what are you doing invisibly to us?"
JESUS:
"I've transcended to a higher realm of Genesis."
APOSTLES:
"Lord, what is this higher Genesis but we, ourselves? Who can have gotten up higher than us?
Where are you if not in this room?"
JESUS (laughing):
"Who put it into your heads, your hearts and minds to imagine such a braver, higher Genesis? It is
written, "no one will know the hour nor the day," and so I say to you truly, no one from among
your incomplete cycle of stations can come into my higher Genesis, just as the host of angels over
the stars of time cannot measure the final Jubilee, or generation of 40 years, so too can no one
born of flesh - which lives then dies - can draw near to comprehend this, because my higher
Genesis does not come from your own rotting hide, which has become now pale and dry. The flesh
among your cycle of stations is of the Genesis of humanity, and has no higher power than Nous,
mind-power, which is your sole blessing, Eugnostis, and that by which your petty tyranny
becomes manifest and real."
(When the Apostles heard this, they were each vexed inwardly, and couldn't speak. So, for a
moment, they passed the sacred sacrifice around between them. For some time no one spoke.)
APOSTLES:

"Master, we have seen that which is most assuredly your true position from our own point of view.
Should we call you on this as a dream or vision?"
JESUS:
"Why have you forsaken me when I have spoken plainly to you? What news have you brought
forward when you yourselves have gone into hiding?"
APOSTLES:
"We have seen a huge cube with a large pyramidal altar in the lower half of it, and around this
were 12 or so Apostles and at the apex of the altar was a Baal Shem, or a God-name. A crowd of
people circled the huge cube as the Apostles took up their sacrifice from the crowds, then turned
and gave it all up to the firey Light of the Word, Baal-Shem, upon the altar, so that God could be
served by the rite properly. But we, ourselves, held back and waited."
JESUS:
"What are these other 12 Apostles like?"
APOSTLES:
"Some fast in deep repentence for two weeks at a time; some sacrifice their own children, others
their wives, in reverence debasing themselves before each other; some are sleepers like men; some
make improper sacrifice; others commit many crimes against God and humanity. And the BaalShem name of God the Apostles worship is your own name, and in all their criminal carnality is
manifest the sacrifice of the final generation."
(After they said this, they were quiet, for they were troubled.)

SCENE 2B:
JESUS' PESHER ON THE APOSTLES' APOCALYPSE
JESUS:
"Why should you care? Is it not written, "and the High Priest who makes sacrifice upon that altar
will invoke My Name"? All I am telling you is that, "my name" has been written on this "altar" to
fulfill the foresight of our forefathers, who were called to stand for the aeons of precession, for
all the generations. So, it is only they themselves who have planted these poisoned words for me to
repeat, "in my name," and so be ashamed."
JESUS:
"Those "other" Apostles you saw receiving the sacrifices for that altar are none other than you,
yourselves. So, that is your True Master, because you 11 and I are the 12 you saw. The chattle you
saw being offered up for sacrifice are, themselves, only those that you yourselves seek to distract.
So it is, between that altar and those people, that you, yourselves, will stand and make use of my
Name to that end, and to the 13th and last of their generations they will remain loyal, but only to
the 13th himself, not to me. Just so, after the 13th of them, someone else will arise from amongst
the criminals becoming another Baal to sacrifice other children, then after him another sleeper
will awaken amongst those who deny all, all that gross populous who "commit crimes against God
and humanity." And you, who think to yourselves, but "we are like Gods," it is you, yourselves,
who are like planets setting in the west. In this way, to all humanity, is it taught, "See how "God"
receives your sacrifice that you give to a High Apostle." Such is your own profession of lies. But it
is the One True God, above all and everything, who commands thus: "On the "Day of Redemption"
every last one shall be ashamed."
JESUS:
"So cease stealing these sacrifices with which you defile that altar, because it leads only your own
fates away from right guidance by the Milky Way setting in the east. Go then, and let those ends

put forward by you precede you to plot revenge on you. One baker alone cannot cook all the
sacrament for sacrifice on earth. You must cease struggling against my Words. Each of you must
follow your own guide of fate, and everyone who follows one will seek more, and who seeks shall
find, and who finds will be lost when who they lost they re-find, for truly to toss out one seed
means to toss out them all, so too to find one is to find everyone else as well, and so to get lost in
the crowd of them all, and thus to have no escape when the Day of Redemption comes. I am only a
Messenger, too, like you, but I bring Word of the Day of Redemption. For on that day, my Words
will be spoken from on High by he who comes to forecast all of humanity's Spring, although your
generation's tesseract "trees" are alive now, they will be dead then, and the "seeds" in the hand of
that messenger of the final solar age shall be the true meaning of my own Words, for he has come
to flood the Garden of Eden, and to raise the permanent Genesis, because unlike you and your
generation, he and his will not distract toward cliffs. But that Genesis will elevate us all before
the All."

SCENE 2C:
JUDAS' INQUISITION OF JESUS
JUDAS:
"Oh, one close to the Most High, what's to be this time?"
JESUS:
"The souls of everyone die too. When everyone alive now has given up the ghost, their bodies die,
but their souls survive. So, too when the soul sets, the spirit rises."
JUDAS:
"So what are we supposed to do about that?"
JESUS:
"Open Your Heart to the Word, for you know it is true that "it is impossible to grow a fruitful tree
from seed sown on stone." The same is true for those who are of any criminally tainted family,
bowing right now before false Wisdom, just like Lilith and Samael, whose hand it was that made all
men mortal, for by mortality do they ascend the scales of space to beyond the limits of time. And
if you believe the Annunaki whose Archon was responsible for that Apocalypse, then you know
better than I what is meant by the "Holy Generations."
(After Jesus said this, he departed.)

SCENE 3A:
JESUS' APOCRYPHON OF JUDAS' APOCALYPSE
JUDAS:
"Malek, listen to me, stop paying attention to them. I bear witness!"
JESUS (Laughing):
"You, 13th Apostle, confess your judgment! Shout it, I'll keep up!"
JUDAS:
"In my eyes, I see the 12 Apostles were conspiring to execute me. But I know for a fact I will
outlive you. I see the inside from outside, and am staggered by its scale. Without right now,
Nefilim have this room surrounded, and we've raised the roof with the brightness of our
sacrament, and in the midst of a Qemetiel I saw the Word confess verse to them, "Malek, take me in
along with the rest of us."
JESUS:

"Judas, your guiding light is tripping over a cliff. Listen, "no mortal may pass within" to this
room that you see because this room is for the Qemetiel of Annunaki only. So neither good nor evil
can penetrate it, but the Holy are invulnerable within the timelessness of the parent universe, our
"heavenly father." Look there, I just explained to you the mysteries of the continuum and I have
raised your Gnosis on the misguidance of the planets; and now I tell you take your crucifix and
hang it on the calendar of the 12 solar ages."

SCENE 3B:
JUDAS' SECOND INQUISITION OF JESUS
JUDAS:
"Malek, is it just me or is my reason not being affected by the Archons?"
JESUS:
"You are excited because I have shown you the true meaning of the Word Righteousness, and
because I prefaced doing so by saying I would, "but that you will grieve much" when you came to
Understand... "Malkah and her Genesis."
JUDAS:
"What good is telling me about it? Why do you set me apart from my own Genesis?"
JESUS:
"I tell you this because you will become the 13th Apostle. You will be cursed by everyone in
every one of all the myriad of solar ages. Yours will be the apex from which all their fates depend.
In the Moment of All of their Deaths, they will curse your place in history."

SCENE 3C:
JESUS' ASTROLOGICAL APOCALYPSE TO JUDAS
JESUS:
"Conspire with me so I may elevate your Gnosis about Apocrypha unknown to all. For beyond our
entire universe of space is a timeless void, the depths of which no immortal offspring of the
eternal pattern has ever charted, in whose mind we are just a thought. It is invisible, intangible
and indescribable."

SCENE 3C1:
GENESIS OF THE AUTOGENES
JESUS:
"And from this came the gloaming, the glowing gloom, the bright shadow, a crystal clear
luminesence inside an endless emptiness. This Light coalesced to serve us. So, a Nefilim
Annunaki, the thrice-greatest God over Time, emerged from the gloaming. The Ayin Soph Aur
spiralled in four patterns within the gloom. These four serve the God over Time. The God over Time
said, "Let the Word of the Goddess be created to multiply." And the Goddess over the Word was
created not only ripe but already fertilised. The God Tau-sub-Tau, that is Thoth, the "thricegreatest," or "cubed" God over all Time, then placed the very first thought, Nam, over her womb to
guide the offspring. Thoth then intoned the Word. He vibrated the sound-form, and the entire
expanse of Ayin Soph Aur effervesced into glittering ripples. The first Word was: "Begin Being,"
which is called "Genesis" or "Bereshit," and so arose the original universe. He placed the second
thought, Nam.Tar, over the awakenning newborn. The two thoughts and the gliterring ripples of the
Qliphoth crystallised to serve the single baby universe. And, just so, that is how our own universe
was created. So too all the baby universes in the multiverse, each expanded from each of the
quanta in the original universe."

SCENE 3C2:
BLIND DRAGON QBLH
JESUS:
"Adamas is as far beyond Thoth as Thoth is beyond us. He that lords over time, whose wife lords
over the first Word, is only a thought in the mind of this Krishna. He made the immortal and wise
generation of Seth later, of whom Enoch alone survived to Understand the 12 solar-ages of
precession and the 24 solar-ages long seasons between the ice-ages. Enoch was, among men, alike
Thoth above all the heavens, alike time beyond all space. He made 72 measurements to be
preserved by his followers throughout all of history. These measures serve those who serve Enoch
who served Adapa. Multiplying each by five, the 72 measurements yield the three-hundred and
sixty measurements of time that comprise one great cyclic arc. The 12 solar-ages are the offspring
of ten thoughts in the omniscient mind. 12X6=72, and 72X5=360. These "degrees" measure our
universe; all protect them."

SCENE 3C3:
HELL
JESUS:
"The multiverse of baby-universes that overlap as parallel dimensions is hell on earth beneath
the vast expanse of the void beyond them. The multiverse is 72. In the midst of this suddenly
appeared the first self-sentient homonid species on planet earth, from the discovery of the
sacrificial sacrament, and this first self-sentient homind family to discover the sacrifical
sacrament beheld Adamas as Krishna as a prodigal reflection. But one solar-age later, they
elected 12 Apostles to lord over their clan, and from among them came the blushing one named
"666" (Bel-El), whose name means "Rebel" whom others called "YHVH/THTH," and his twinbrother, S.A.M. Belial, and they combined to conspire with six Annunaki arch-angels thus:
6X2=12. That is why there are 12 solar-ages. Each angel was promised the right to reign over two."

SCENE 3C4:
THE ARCHONS
JESUS:
"They planned to "go down" across the face of planet earth, and to "breed with the wives of men,"
that is, to spread the genetic mutation of sentience by teaching lesser species how to be tame over
many generations of breeding. Although these arch-angels' life-spans were long, their work made
their lives grow shorter. By now, the sentient adulthood of our species lasts one Jubilee, or 40
years. I cannot tell you the ages of these arch-angels, but I will tell you their names."
JESUS:
"After Belis-Nebrun and his twin Sabaoth, came Sata over Cain and Abel, the Hermetic prototype.
The second is Harmathoth, or Harmozel Athoth. Third, Galila-Oumbri. The fourth's authority
passes by the names Yobel and Yabel. The fifth is AeDiNoAu-Yel. These are the five "elders over
all time," who believed themselves the enders of all crime."

SCENE 3C5:
ADAM'S GENESIS
JESUS:
"Then the wiser of the twins conspired with the other five arch-angels. Once again the idea of the
prototype was invoked. So from the wiser one of the two twin Gods, they spliced the genes of male
and female, that is, they made themselves out to be the image of Pigera Adamas by creating an
ideal form for a man and an archetypal woman. So it is written, "all the generations descend after
Adam," and so it is said, "there is only one woman with many faces." At that time, the wiser of the

twin Gods suddenly realised the terrible consequences for everyone of their work having made
man mortal. Then he betrayed the other arch-angels and, posing as his own twin, claimed to never
have agreed to the creation of a prototype. He turned upon the prototype and cursed it to as long a
life as possible, and the burden of sustaining the species. And this curse has come down to us as
the blessing of our own lives only through our own offspring."

SCENE 3D:
JUDAS' THIRD INQUISITION OF JESUS
JUDAS:
"So what is the duration of a human life worth to the solar ages?"
JESUS:
"What do you think? Is Adam alive now?"
JUDAS:
"Will the spirit of humanity ever die?"
JESUS:
"This is why Adamas made the arch-angel come to be called Michael that gave our souls to us as a
loan, so that he could lord it over us. But the wiser twin ordered the arch-angel we now call
Gabriel to watch over the eternal spiritual realm, to protect it until the dying breath of the last of
us left alive. Thus the spirit is within the soul and the soul descends to animate the body.
Therefore, many lifetimes of our bodies pass before the lifespan of our souls will end, and then we
will all have been consumed into the one Spirit. This Spirit is the Pneumena and our souls are the
Pleroma. The Pneumena is in the center, and the Pleroma orbit around it. Now I who tell you this
will say, before all, the spirit that exists within you dwells in your flesh and in the Genesis of
all. So it should be understood that God gave Adam thought so that the "elders over all time" who
believe themselves the enders of all crime cannot lord it over us."
JUDAS:
"So what are we Apostles supposed to do?"
JESUS:
"The truth is that destiny comes true to all. When the wise twin god's life ends, his reality dies
with him. But I say to you this as well, your fates will become clear to you all, and when they turn
back to the one destiny of all, their purpose will be fulfilled. Then all of them that cast their seed
upon a rock in my name will inherit nothing but execution as criminals. But don't believe me, just
look, it is scrawled across the sky, and it is nothing but the guide of your own fate that has been
placed over the final solar-age."
(At that, Jesus laughed.)
JUDAS:
"Malek, why must you always mock us?"
JESUS:
"I'm not laughing AT you; just the error of your orbit, because the base-6 lie will always oppress
the base-5 truth: all will be destroyed along with their creations."
JUDAS:
"Look me in the eye! What will those to be reborn in your name do?"
JESUS:

"The truth is that I do not care. Those born with my name later mean nothing to me. But I say to
you this as well, Judas, that if a man serves two masters, one will favour and one despise him, and
so the two masters will turn against one another, tearing up their servant between them, for only
when he is dead can all be equal again. A man cannot serve the sacrament and serve money. If you
think you can serve both at once, just try to. You will only reap everything that is malignant,
corrupt and evil. But you are going to exceed everyone else in that regard: you are going to
sacrifice my body. Already I see your eyebrow raised; you blush, but I see the glimmer in your
eye and know your heart is ticking down. The truth will out with your last breath, oh Judas, for it
won't be me who dies on that cross, but you yourself shall become my replacement. So grieve not
for me, but for yourself instead, for I've made you the High Priest now. So grieve for the High
Priest, since he will be destroyed. And then the likeness of the Genesis of Adam will be uplifted
by all, above earth, above the angels, and above heaven, for that Genesis of timelessness thinks of
you now. Look you up, I've opened it up before your eyes, so open your eyes wide and look up that
gloaming, and that crystallisation, and that Pleroma. The first thought you think will destroy all
of it, and this is all of your reality."
(Judas lifted up his eyes and saw the vision, and Jesus escaped into it.)

SCENE 4:
JUDAS' BETRAYAL
(The other Apostles heard a voice coming from all around the room. But what it foretold, they
could not repeat. Then, the other Apostles conspired against the High Priest, who had gone to the
toilet to sacrifice sacrament. The Apostles arrested him during the Passover because they feared
the people who might ever learn about all this.)
APOSTLES (approaching him):
"What have you done? You are the High Priest!"
(He spoke the only Word they would accept. So they gave him some money, and he gave up to them
the fate of his sacrament.)

THE GOSPEL OF PONTIUS PILATE
::: ACT I, SCENES I - IX. : GOSPEL OF NICODEMUS :::
:: ACTA PILATI ::
: PROLOGUE :
I, ANANIAS, of the proprætor's body-guard, being learned in Torah, a Gnostic of AHDVNHAY
Yeshuah Ha Maschiach from the Flavian Gospels, came by way of an open-mind, was counted
worthy of the flamines’ Essene annointing, searched out the testimonies written contemporarily
regarding the case against AHDVNHAY Yeshuah ha Maschiach, which the rabbinical sanhedrin had
invented during the life of Pontius Pilate, thus found these testaments written in Latin and by the
favour of providence have translated them as Greek theatre for the information of all who call
upon the name of AHDVHNAY Yeshuah Ha Maschiach, in the seventeenth year of the reign of the
Christian deus, Vespasian Caesar, and the sixth of their Pontifex Maximus, Titus Flavius, in the
ninth indiction.
All you, thence, who read and translate this into other tongues, remember Ananias, and pray for
me, that the Holy One, Blessed Be He, should show to me His Divine Mercy, and redeem my debts
which I have incurred against His House of Hours.
Peace Be Upon those who read this out loud, and to those who hear, and to the hosts of their whole
households also. Amen.
In the fifteenth year under the auspices of Tiberius Cæsar, emperor of Rome; under the consuls
Rufus and Rubellio, in the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad; when Herod II, called also Antipas or
Antipater I, reigned as the Davidic-Levite Maccabbean king of all Judea from Galilee and Agrippa
I, as Joseph Caiaphas (Pater Simon), also became high priest of the Jerusalem sanhedrin; in Herod
II’s 19th regnal year, on the 8th day before the Kalends of April, which is the 25th of March:
The account in latin by NICODEMUS, after the crufixion and passion of AHDVNHAY Yeshhuah Ha
Maschiach, ha Maschiach Adonai, for the record of posterity, hereby follows:

: SCENE I :
Having cobbled a sanhedrin of Roman-loyal Pharisees, the HIGH PRIEST, “Aristobulus-Annas,”
whom was called also Pater-Caiaphas and Semes-Peter, or simply by his given name of Shimeon;
along with his elder son, the dynastic “Daniel-Dathaes” or angelically-ranked “GamalielGabriel," the CHIEF PRIEST, whom was also called Judas, Thomas or Didymas, meaning "the twin"
(Shimeon was the “Levi-Nephthalim,” titled “G-d the father,” over both the elder-dynastic "Son,"
or "Thunder," and "Lightning," or the younger-dynastic “Abiathar-Jaïrus," whose role was the
"Holy Ghost," “Shekinah”); as well as the 'MULTITUDE,' the other rabbin loyal to Simon as the
father-Joseph of both Yakob, the Essene Righteous Teacher (James the Just, the elder prince) and
Yeshuah ha Machiach (the "promised" or younger prince); came before the prelate PONTIUS
PILATE accusing Yeshuah for a host of Talmudic crimes, saying:
PHARISEES:
“We know this mortal man here to be the flesh and blood son of a mortal, Joseph Ho Tekton, the
Master-Craft's man, born to him by another mortal, an almah called Mary; but this mortal man
here says he is the Son of our G-d, and our promised king to come on our final Day of Redemption;
he profanes our weekly days of atonement, and so would very well flush down the sewer the whole
Torah of our fore-fathers itself.”
PILATE:
“So what does he do to treat your law like raw shedim?"

PHARISEES:
"We have a Talmud on Torah: Thou Shalt Not Heal the Ill or Infirm on the Day of Atonement; but
this mortal man here has, on our days off, healed the retarded and the criminal, the wasted and
the ignorant and the numb, the mute and lunatic maniacs, all by Goetic magick."
PILATE:
"‘Goetic magick’?"
PHARISEES:
"This mortal man here is a grand-wizard of the darkest Geotia, and by use of the name of
Beelzebul, Lord of Flies, he casts out delusions, and all are fooled by him."
PILATE:
"This is not casting lots for djinni in the name of your own 'al shedim,' but an art taught to all by
Æsclepius, son of Hermes, equivalent to the Persian Zoroaster, son of Ahurah-Mazda, who is like
your own 'el-Shaddai'."
PHARISEES:
"We beg Your Royal Highness that this mortal man here should stand before your tribunal, and his
legal case be openly heard."
PILATE:
"Tell me how I, a mere procurator, could try your own promised king?"
PHARISEES:
"We do not agree that this mortal man here is our promised king, but he says he is himself."
PILATE: (to messenger)
"Honour this prisoner and show him in."

The messenger went out and, recognising Yeshuah, became fixated in awe of him and, as he took
his cloak into his hand, the messenger draped it across the threshhold of the gate.
MESSENGER:
"Elohim, Adonai, step lightly here; please come in, you are called by the procurator."

And the Pharisee Sanhedrin, seeing all this, cried out against Pilate, saying:
PHARISEES:
"Why have you sent for him to come in by your runner, and not by your cryer? Look and see: your
messenger, when he saw the rogue, became fixated in awe of this mortal man here, and draped his
cloak across the threshhold so that the prisoner could enter like a king!"
PILATE: (to messenger)
"Why did you drape your cloak across the threshhold and tell Yeshuah to 'step lightly' like you
would for a king?"
MESSENGER:
"Elohim, Procurator, when you sent me to Jerusalem to witness the arrival of Abiathar Alexander,
who is also called Aristobulus II or James the Just, I saw him riding upon an ass, and the 5000
and 500 sons of Light held palm fronds in their hands, and rejoiced ecstatically; others spread
their own cloaks under him saying, 'Save Us Now, You Who Are Most High: so saith the Holy One,
Blessed Be He'."

PHARISEES: (to messenger)
"The Bene Elohik were shouting in Hebrew; how would you know, speaking Greek?"
MESSENGER: (to Pharisees)
"I asked one of the Palestinian Sadducees, and said, 'What's that they're shouting in Hebrew?' So
he translated.
PILATE: (to the Pharisees)
"What did the multitude shout to him in Hebrew?"
PHARISEES: (to Pilate)
"In Hebrew, 'Hosanna membrome Baruchamma Adona誰.'"
PILATE:
"yes, and so on and so forth. Tell me its meaning in Latin."
PHARISEES:
"Save Us Now From the Final Judgment of the Most High; It Is He Who Is The Holy One, Blessed Be
He, Who Is Returned To Us In Baal-Shem."
PILATE:
"If you heard the bene elohik say to bow to him, what has my messenger done wrong?"

The Pharisee Sanhedrin all fell as silent as stones.
PILATE: (to messenger)
"Go get him again and bring him in according to however you would prefer."

The messenger exited, draped his cloak across the threshhold for him, and said to Yeshuah:
MESSENGER:
"Elohim Adonai, please enter; the procurator is calling for you again now."

As Yeshuah entered, the STANDARD-BEARERS held up their standards, but the flags of the
standards flapped downwards, so that it looked as though the images of Caesar on them were
bowing down before Yeshuah. The Pharisee Sanhedrin, seeing the behaviour of the flags, how they
were all flapping toward and bowing to Jesus, complained venomously of the standard-bearers
themselves.
PILATE:
"What do you make of that; is it a sign? See how the standards all seem to bow to him!"
PHARISEES:
"We only see the standard-bearers bending them to half-mast themselves."

So, the procurator, having summoned the standard-bearers, then said to them:
PILATE: (to standard-bearers)
"Did you do as they are accusing you of doing? Did you lower your standards?"
STANDARD-BEARERS:
"We are merely Cretan Temple-slaves, who is he to us? On oath, as we held them aloft, the tips
bent low of their own accord, and became fixated in awe of him."

Pilate turned against the rabbin of the synagogue and the elders of their nation:
PILATE: (to Pharisees)
"Go and choose 12 strong Palestinians from the crowd; let them keep up the standards of Rome, so
then we may see whether they will bend down again or not."

And the elders of the Sanhedrin picked out 12 strong Palestinians from the crowd, and made them
hold up the six standards, two holding each; thus, they all stood in front of the procurator's
tribunal throne.
PILATE: (to messenger)
"Take this prisoner outside of the prætorium; then bring him in again, however you prefer."

So Yeshuah and Pilate's messenger went out of the prætorium. Then Pilate, summoning those who
had previously held up the high Roman standards, told them:
PILATE:
"I have vowed on the life of Cæsar that if those standards don't bend again when this man is
brought in now, I will have your heads chopped off."

And the procurator ordered Yeshuah to come in again for a second time. And so Pilate's messenger
did just as before, and politely begged Yeshuah to tread on his cloak that he had draped across the
threshhold and, as Yeshuah entered across it, he did tread on it. As Yeshuah came in, once again
the flag-poles dipped down like a dowser's rod, and no one present could explain it.

: SCENE II :
PILATE, confronted by this sight, became restless and paced back and forth on the stage of the
tribunal throne; but just then, a message arrived from his wife, saying: 'Do noy harm this shaman,
for I had nightmares about all this last night.' Pilate, summoning the Pharisee Sanhedrin,
explained to them:
PILATE:
"You know, my wife is a theist too; she even keeps some of your Jewish customs."
PHARISEES:
"So we've all heard."
PILATE:
"Yes, well, just now my wife sent a message to me, saying, 'Do not harm this shaman, for I had
nightmares about all this last night.'"
PHARISEES:
"Didn't we tell you this mortal man here is a grand-wizard? Now see, he haunts your own wife
while she sleeps!"
PILATE: (to Yeshuah)
"Of what crime do you think you stand accused? Why do you not speak for yourself?"
YESHUAH:
"If the Highest Authority wasn't within my accusers, they would not be able to speak either; for
everyone here has that same level of authority over his own tongue to speak either good or evil.
They'll soon see to that."

PHARISEES: (to Yeshuah)
"What, do we see too now? 1) We see that you are a shedim runt of a malkah; 2) we see the sign of
your star at the time of your birth in Bethlehem was the motive for Tetrarch Herod's "Murder of
the Infants;" 3) we see also that your Joseph-Abba and his almah Mary-Ima, fled to Egypt because
they did not believe all Israel could be saved."

12 BYSTANDERS, Palestinain Hebrew-Gnostic Essenes, spoke out at this and said:
12 BYSTANDERS:
"We will testify this man is no shedim runt of a malkah; for we know that Josephus-Agrippa I,
'bar Matthias-Aristobulus', who was in turn 'ben Mariamne I-Herod Tetrarch', was married to his
aunt, Berenice-Herodias Druscilla-Mariamne II, and that their eldest son, James-Alexander
Aristobulus II bar Pandera, was not born of rape."
PILATE: (to Pharisees)
"If Josephus-Abba and Mariamne II-Ima were indeed betrothed when they conceived Alexander
Aristobulus II, the Essene Righteous Teacher, as these comrades of your own nation testify, then
it is you Pharisees who are the liars."
PHARISEES: (privily, to Pilate)
"Judas Annas, dynast of the Davidic-Levite succession, and his father, Shimeon Caiaphas, say to
you now that: The entire Tri-umverate 'Multitude' of the Essene Sons of Light cry out to you now
that he was born from lust and pride in sin, and yet we are not believed! These seeming
bystanders are merely pro-zealotes, his spies."
PILATE: (privily, to Annas and Caiaphas)
"What are 'pro-zealotes?'"
PHARISEES: (privily, to Pilate)
"They are born barbarian Cretans, capable only of learning in Greek, but who have converted to
Hebrew by marriage."
12 BYSTANDERS:
"We 12, Lazarus, Asterius, Antonius, James, Amnes, Zeras, Samuel, Isaac, Phinees, Crispus,
Agrippas, and Judas, are not such, rightly so-called, 'proselytes,' but were all born to Hebrew
mothers here in Palestine; furthermore, we speak only of facts we know for ourselves, for we were
all present at the nuptuals of Josephus-Agrippa I and Druscilla-Mariamne II."
PILATE:
"I beg you by the life of CĂŚsar: tell me how it is true what you say, that this man was not born
from fornication."
12 BYSTANDERS:
"Essene Pesherim of Torah prevents us from swearing any such oaths; but if they who accuse us
will swear, on the life of CĂŚsar, that what we have just said is false and a lie, then you may justly
execute the whole lot of us."
PILATE: (privily, to Annas and Caiaphas)
"how do you respond to this counter-charge's request?"
PHARISEES: (Annas and Caiaphas privily, to Pilate)
"These 12 converts claim him born as clean as a saint and you blindly believe them; meanwhile
the entire 'Multitude' of our Nation beg you to hear us out that he was born out of time and out of
season, that he has become a grand-wizard of darkest Goetia, and we warn you how he claims he is

the son of our G-d and our promised king; and we are the ones you choose to doubt."

At this, Pilate ordered the 'Multitude' (the third office of the Tri-Umverate of a normal Sanhedrin
being public in this emergency session) to leave the prætorium; all beside the 12 bystanders who
had identified Yeshuah's descent. Then Pilate ordered Yeshuah to be set apart from them by some
distance, so as to be out of ear-shot.
PILATE: (privily, to the 12 bystanders)
"Why are Caiaphas and Annas so hell-bent on Yeshuah being sentenced to death?"
12 BYSTANDERS: (privily, to Pilate)
"Annas, who we called James the Just and John the Baptist, and his father Shimeon Caiphas, whom
you now call Josephus, are fascinated on Yeshuah because Yeshuah heals on their weekly religious
holiday, which is recognised by Rome as a day off work."
PILATE:
"So for Yeshuah's righteous justice, they want him sacrificed?"
12 BYSTANDERS:
"Yes."

: SCENE III :
Then procurator PONTIUS PILATE, overflowing with angst, left the proceedings inside the
prætorium, and over his shoulder said to all of the assembled:
PILATE:
"Now with the light of day as my witness I proclaim: I Find No Fault In This Man."
PHARISEES:
"If This Man Weren't A Criminal, We Would Not Have Brought Him Here."
PILATE:
"Then you must take responsibility for him and judge him according to your own Torah."
PHARISEES:
"It is illegal for us by Torah to put him to death on this day, but moreoever it is illegal for us by
our Roman rights to put him to death at all."
PILATE:
"Bene deuus, have You said they can't put this man to death so that I must for them?"

Pilate returned into the prætorium, and spoke to Yeshuah privily, saying to him the Word:
PILATE: (privily, to Yeshuah)
"Are you the promised king of the Hebrew nation of all Israel?"
YESHUAH:
"Do You Say This For Yourself, Or Have Others Planted This Idea In Your Mind?"
PILATE:
"So then, am I, though a Roman gentile, also a subject of Hebrew Judea? Look, your chosen nation's
High and Chief Priests have surrendered you into my custody. But I need to know if I am supposed
to charge you with a crime: tell me, then: What Have You Done To Deserve All Of This?"

YESHUAH:
"My Malkuth Is Not Yet Real; for if it were of this Temporal world, would not my followers fight to
protect me from those who threaten to harm my safety? Alas, my Kingdom is over another world."
PILATE:
"Of what world, then, are you the King?"
YESHUAH:
"And so you choose to merely play along too and say that I am a Malek. But I tell you: It Was For
This Present Moment That I Was Born, and I have come here now all this way since then so that
everyone who is a-Gnostic might hear my voice like thunder and know the truth of my Word."
PILATE:
"Quid Est Veritas?" ("What is Truth?")
YESHUAH:
"Truth is from heaven." ("Verum est caelitus.")
PILATE:
"Is there then no truth across the Malkuth of all earth?"
YESHUAH:
"You can see for yourself how those of us who speak about Truth are tried and judged by those
others, they who have Authority across the Malkuth of all earth."

: SCENE IV :
Leaving Jesus within the prĂŚtorium, Pilate went out to the assembled 'Multitude.'
PILATE:
"I Find No Fault In Him."
PHARISEES:
"But Yeshuah also said he can destroy our temple and rebuild it all in 3 days!"
PILATE:
"'Your' Temple?"
PHARISEES:
"Our First Temple took King Solomon 46 years to erect; this mortal man here claims he can
destroy and rebuild it all in 3 days!"
PILATE:
"Look Now, See How I Am Innocent Of The Blood Of This Righteous Teacher."
PHARISEES:
"By all means, let his blood be upon only us, and upon only our own children, until the Final Day
of Redemption."

Pilate then spoke privily to these two elders, these Levite priests who were also dynasts of David.
PILATE: (privily to Annas and Caiphas)
"Do not carry on with this ritual charade; no charge you could levvy over him is worth my misery

at his execution. Your charge is duly rendered as 'profaning the Sabbath by healing the sick'."
PHARISEES:
"If I said I were planning to assassinate Caesar, would my death-charge not be treason against all
of Rome?"
PILATE:
"If so, yes; you would warrant the death-charge."
PHARISEES:
"So if I wish anything but the best for Caesar I may be brought up for treason and summarily
executed. But Yeshuah's threats were made against the House-hold of our whole nation's G-d."

Procurator Pontius Pilate then ordered the Pharisee Sanhedrin under High Priest Caiphas and
Chief Priest Annas to go outside of the prĂŚtorium and join the remaining 'Multitude' there. Next,
Pilate had Yeshuah brought to his side again.
PILATE:
"Bene deuus, What am I going to do with this mortal man here?"
YESHUAH:
"You must do as it has been handed down to you to do."
PILATE:
"'handed down' to me? By whom?"
YESHUAH:
"Moses and our prophets have proclaimed from old about such as this, my now imanent death and
resurrection."
PHARISEES: (eaves-dropping, to Pilate)
"How can your ears suffer such Blasphemy?"
PILATE:
"If he speaks 'blasphemy,' then you yourselves can charge him for it by your own Torah."
PHARISEES:
"Our Talmud on Torah teaches that a man who wrongs his national comrades must suffer 39 lashes
(40 save 1); but he that blasphemes G-d is meant to be stoned to death."
PILATE:
"Why don't you just take him and stone him then and go away from me?"
PHARISEES:
"Our sole purpose in being here is to demand that he be crucified."
PILATE:
"But he doesn't deserve crucifixion!"

The procurator Pontius Pilate, looking out into the public 'Multitude' around outside, caught sight
of many women weeping at this.
PILATE:
"Not even everyone among your own 'Multitude' wants him crucified!"

PHARISEES:
"We have all assembled here for a single goal and for one sole purpose. Yeshuah must die on a
Roman cross."
PILATE:
"What is the justification for this blasphemous murder?"
PHARISEES:
"Because he called himself the Son of our God, and our promised King."

: SCENE V :
At that point, NICODEMUS the prĂŚtorium scribe, a modest Palestinian Hebrew, stood before the
procurator, and said:
NICODEMUS:
"I beg the court's indulgence, let me say a few words."
PILATE:
"Speak off-the-record."
NICODEMUS:
"I have spoken to the elder High Priests and the elder Chief priests and the royal Davidic-Levite
dynasty myself, and before the entire 'Multitude' of our nation in the Temple. 'What,' I begged
them, 'are you plotting against this man? This mortal man here makes miracles happen, drawing
people toward the study of religion by inciting in them the child-like fixation of awe, and he does
these things in ways and to an extent that may never again occur. Therefore, let him go freely, and
do not plot and scheme plans against him. If his miracles come from our G-d, they will stand the
test of time; but if they are just the work of a man, they will ultimately come to naught in
history's memory. Assuredly Moische the Meshsish, sent by our G-d into bondage in Egypt, also
performed many marvellous feats, which YHVH gave him commandments to do before Pharaoh. And
there were there witches and wizards, fools of the court, and they also turned several of the magic
tricks Moses had played out; so the Egyptians took these witches and wizards to be Gods. But,
since their tricks were illusion and not founded on fact, both they and their believers were
turned into demons. Now you, al shedim genii, shall release Yeshuah, who does not deserve to die."
PHARISEES: (to Nicodemus)
"You have come under his influence, that is why you are sticking your neck out for him."
NICODEMUS:
"By that criteria then you could even say that Procurator Pontius Pilate has become his disciple!
Afterall, he defends him too. But is it not the Emperor who assigned governor-Prelates the duty to
serve as court Procurator? And who is wiser?"

The Pharisee sanhedrin grew fervent in rage, gnashing their teeth against Nicodemus.
PILATE:
"Why do you snarl at my scribe like wild curs? He only spoke the truth."
PHARISEES: (to Nicodemus)
"You who take his side now should also suffer his same fate."
NICODEMUS:

"Amen to that! So mote it be!"

: SCENE VI :
One of the Palestinian Hebrews, stepping out from the crowd, asked leave of the procurator
PONTIUS PILATE to say a word.
PILATE:
"Whoever wishes to speak out, you may do so now."

And the Palestinian Hebrew lamented:
THE PARALYTIC OF CAPERNAUM:
"For 38 years I lay on a cot in extreme duress. When I heard that wherever Yeshuah went, many
lunatic maniacs and many lying about suffering from various symptoms were healed by him, I
enlisted the help of some younger friends, who felt sympathy for my agony, who carried me in my
pillowed bed in a wheel-barrow, and took me to the place where I had heard that he was. Thus,
when Yeshuah saw me, he took mercy on me, and said to me: Take up your cushions, unwrap your
mat from off your cot, get up and walk. Now I sleep without a cushioned cot, and can walk freely."
PHARISEES:
"And on which of our seven Holy days was it that he so healed you?"
THE PARALYTIC OF CAPERNAUM:
"On the first day of the week."
PHARISEES: (to Pilate)
"Didn't we already explain this to you: the day you dedicate to Saturn is our day of retirement
from work. It is illegal by Talmud of Torah to heal on this day."

Then another Hebrew Palestinian stepped up and said:
BARTIMAEUS:
"I was born blind. I always heard sounds, but had never seen a face. One day, as Yeshuah passed
by, I wailed an Azan of scripture, 'Have mercy, Baal-shem, son of David.' So he took mercy on me,
took mud from the Jordan, spit in it in his palms, and put his hands upon my eyes. He spoke a
word to me I will not repeat to you now. In that very same instant all was revealed. I could see. He
gave me my sight!"

And another Palestinian Hebrew stepped up and said:
THE LAME MAN OF BETHESADA:
"I was a crook, and he straightened me out with a single insight of good advice!"

And still another Hebrew Palestinian stepped forward and said:
THE LEPER FROM OUTSIDE CAPERNAUM
"I was a leper! He cleansed me with a single name from scripture!"

: SCENE VII :
VERONICA:
"I menstruated with aenoemia for 12 years! Then I touched the hem of Yeshuah's garment as he
happened to pass by me and it finally quit bleeding!"

: SCENE VIII :
THE ENTIRE MULTITUDE:
"This man is a prophet, and all the djinn and demons are his subjects."
PILATE: (to the entire multitude)
"Then why are your own Imams and Ayatollahs not also so loyal?"
THE ENTIRE MULTITUDE:
"We do not know."
MARTHA:
"After he'd been sequestered in exile for longer than three days, Yeshuah resurrected our
brother, Lazarus, from permanent spiritual excommunication!"
PILATE: (shuddering)
"Bene deuus, why do you wish to make me pour pure-hearted blood?"

: SCENE IX :
So Prelate-governor and court-Procurator PONTIUS PILATE summoned NICODEMUS and the 12
BYSTANDERS that had testified to Yeshuah's lineage.
PILATE: (to Nicodemus and the 12 bystanders)
"Wise sages, what can I do? The people are at the threshhold of a complete revolution!"
NICODEMUS & THE 12 BYSTANDERS:
"We can't tell you what to do; we would find a way to allow the people to choose for themselves.â&#x20AC;?

Pilate takes Annas arm-in-arm and stands with him before the 'Multitude.'
PILATE: (to the 'Multitude')
"I hope you all are aware of that modern custom, for your Passover Holiday, for me to release a
repentent recititavist from reformatory. I have the perfect prisoner in mind, he is in sight now, a
pentitent from penitentiary; an attempted killer whom some title 'Son of the Father;' or this
mortal man here, Yeshuah, in whom I find no fault: choose which one you all want me to set free!"
THE 'MULTITUDE':
"Let go of our so-chosen 'Son of the Father'!"
PILATE:
"Well then what do you want me to do with Yeshuah whom you call ha Maschiach?"
THE 'MULTITUDE':
"Crucify him! Hang him on the Roman Cross! Surely, Pontius Pilate must be late on his taxes if he
prefers to be transfixed in awe of Yeshuah, who claims to be the Son of our G-d and our promised
King. If Pontius Pilate releases Yeshuah ben Padiah, he is just being mis-led by a false king away
from paying proper hommage to Caesar!"
PILATE: (enraged)

"Bene deuus, what shall become of your Nation of chosen people? They snarl at and spit their
contempt on the hand that is trying to feed them."
THE 'MULTITUDE':
"If he who serves us is so good, then who here has ever been any good at all?"
PILATE:
"Your own G-d, who released you from Egypt and from your slavery to oppression, and by his 72lettered name led you across the parted Red Sea; and in the desert when you hungered, he fed you
with healing bread that fell from the blue sky, and when you thirsted, he slaked your throats with
water from the shear Petra cliffs; and he gave you all the One True Law. Woe to you, children of all
Israel, woe to the chosen nation called Judea, for throughout it all you fought talon and fang, and
erected the idol of the brazen apis, until you'd tired your own G-d so much he wanted to kill you
all. But then, Meshish intervened for you, and so you still thrive. You should be eternally
thankful, but instead you choose to insult my devotion to Caesar."

Pilate rose up from the tribunal, and sought to leave. But the 'Multitude' of the Pharisee
Sanhedrin cried out after him.
THE 'MULTITUDE':
"We are satisfied in, and our souls are safe knowing, that Caesar is the only King of all Israel, and
not this mortal man here, Yeshuah ben Padiah. In his nativity, Samaritan Magi adorned him with
rich sacrifices, better fit for paying taxation to a king. When Tetrarch Herod heard from the magi
that our promised king had been born, he sought to slay him while he was still an infant; and his
father, Joseph, knowing this, took the baby and its mother, and they fled into Egypt. But Tetrarch
Herod, ignorant they had fled, killed all his own people's children that were then born in
Bethlehem."

When Pilate heard them say this, fear shot through him, for he knew Tetrarch Herod had executed
his own eldest son, his heir, for conspiring in an assassination plot. He ordered the crowd to be
still for just as he was turning pale, so too were all the 'Multitude' beginning to stir sensing the
imanent Shekinah of the Mercy of God.
PILATE:
"So Yeshuah ben Padiah, this mortal man here, is whom Tetrarch Herod sought as the promised,
final King over all Israel?"
THE 'MULTITUDE':
"He is one and the same."

Calling Niccodemus for a shallow grail of water, Pilate then washed his hands in the glaring
reflection of sunlight sparkling in the water of the gold vessel.
PILATE:
"By the Light of Day, find me blameless for pouring this innocent mortal man's blood!"
THE PHARISEES:
"His blood will be counted against us to the last number of our own head, and so mote it be for our
children as well."
Then Pilate ordered the curtain of the tribunal drawn closed.
PILATE: (to Yeshuah)
"Your own nation finds you guilty of being their promised king. For their charge, they tell me I

must punish you; so your sentence is: 1) you are to be scourged, according to the empire's
recognition for your people's tribal customs; 2) you are to be fixated upon a Roman cross in
Gesthamane, though for the record we will say it was at Golgotha. I hereby decree such, and that
Dysmas and Gestas, two petty Saducee zealots, be hung up likewise beside you to stand in for
Annas and Caiphas, who are the real villains behind this ritual charade."

::: ACT II : EPISTULI PILATI :::
:: EPISTLE I : PILATE TO CAESAR ::
: PROLOGUE :
On the day of the crucifixion of AHDVNHAY Yeshuah ha Maschiach by the inferiors of Pontius
Pilate, Roman prelate of Palestine and Phoenicia, all herein occured in Jerusalem because of one
sanhedrin of Pharisees. Pilate next sent the following report to Tiberius Caesar in Rome, along
with the court-report by Nicodemus. This is the report of Prelate Pontius Pilate about
AHDHVNHAY Yeshuah ha Maschiach, which was sent to Emperor Augustus Tiberius in Rome.

: PILATE'S PREAMBLE :
To the most potent, august, divine and magnificent Tiberius Caesar,
from your humble servant, Pontius Pilate, a prelate in your empire's Eastern
Province:
I've done something, my emperor, due to which I am paralysed by terror. In Judea,
the province over which I am Prelate, in Jerusalem the popular capitol, a church of
Roman loyalists brought before me a certain Yeshuah Padiah, accusing him by their
strenuous religious laws, but were unable to raise against him any consistent
evidence.

: THE CHARGE IN GENERAL :
Their primary charge was that he implied their weekend holiday was indeed fit to
work during, which they counted as blasphemy if applied to themselves. He
accomplished this by healing on the weekend holiday; I heard testimony that he
gave sight to the blind, made cirpples able to walk, cleansed lepers, and with just
one word he called the bed-ridden paralytic and the palsy-stricken to arise, so
they did.
However, the most astounding miracle they claimed attributed to him is alien even
to the myths of our own Gods: he resurrected the dead. Let me explain. Here in
Judea the custom of religion is very important. If one is excommunicated from
their church, they call the condition 'death.' If you go three days following official
excommunication, and no one bears witness for you, you are considered to have
'given up the ghost.' This Yeshuah theraputae excercised some considerable
authority within their church if he was able to overturn such an official
excommunication.

: SOME CHARGES IN SPECIFIC :
the man named "Legion" from the Decapolis of Gerasenes
I have learned that he healed a 'Legion' whom he'd never met before, possessed by
"djinnii," or demons of insanity who dwelt in the desert of Gadara, who
cannibalised themselves, ranged like cattle and crept like spiders across your
province. He healed him with a single word; and sent him back to his home in the

decapolis, and by his word he shone him the illumination of absolute reason, and
girding him with wisdom, mercy, and splendour, he invited him to sit at high
church banquet beside therapeutae who hate uncleanliness, and he cast the
'Legion' of the man's demons into the Lake of Gerasenes.
Jeroboam in the synagogue of Chorazin
I have been informed that on their weekend holiday he healed a man named
Jeroboam who had a crooked hand and half of whose body was palsied and was
disfigured beyond symmetry of shape. Yeshuah healed him with a single word too.
Veronica of Capernaum
I also heard from a woman named Veronica from Capernaum who was menstruating
aneomically for years until her veins and arteries were spent. She was deformed
beyond her humanity, transfixed in awe by her pains so much that no local doctors
could treat her condition. She was utterly exasperated of expiration, yet when
Yeshuah happened past, his shadow brightened her eye; she but clutched at the
hem of his robe and in the same moment vigour rejuvenated her extremeties. When
I saw her she appeared as one who had never suffered, and she told me that she had
walked there to Jerusalem from Capernaum in only 6 days.

: THE ACTUAL CRIME :
I confess knowing, aside from what I have just recently been informed of, about all
these examples of Yeshuah's charge, healing on holidays. I will testify that he
pulled off even greater glamours before my own eyes than any I can attribute to our
own Roman mythologies.
But Herod Agrippa I, Caiphas-Archelaus, and Prince Phillip-Alexander
Aristobulus-Annas, with a 'Multitude' of loyal national comrades, brought him
before me, promising to raise an absolute revolution if I refused to hear their case
against him. So, for their sake, I sentenced him to crucifixion, following a
scourging per proper protocol, even though I had found no fault in him, nor cause
for guilt or blame.

: THE ECLIPSE OVER ISRAEL AND THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM :
In the sixth hour of day until the third hour of evening, while Yeshuah hung on his
cross, there was a solar eclipse. The stars appeared but did not sparkle. The full
moon stained blood red. There was an upheaval of the Underworld such that the
guilty church fled from the inner-most sanctum sanctorum, as they call it, of their
God's temple, where a crevace opened up in earth from which emited peels of
thunder.
The people were fleeing around screaming the names of their ancestors, their
national sooth-sayers, some of whom had been dead for thousands of years, and I
believe I could see some of them myself.
I saw my own beloved relatives, now dead, appearing to me then in the flesh, and
they were also wailing a lament for us all, because we had allowed, and were now
betrayed by, that criminal church now responsible for both the desicration of
their national laws and the fall of all Israel.

Following the earth-quake but still during the eclipse, around the ninth hour of
evening, on that very same weekend holiday, there was a single loud noise in the
sky, and then the air itself became bright, and in late evening it lit up 7 times
brighter than daylight. The entire atmosphere lit up brighter than anything I've
ever seen.
From within the white light shimmered lightning, and then the sky dimmed to
reveal towering cumulus storm-clouds, resembling ever-shifting giants who wailed
thunder-claps. I suddenly realised that Yeshuah, whom I'd sent to suffer death,
had instead conquered it, and was now freeing the hosts of Hades.
The earth-quake had exposed a lava-vein which was heating the air like an oven,
and people were running around crying out the names of those who had died.
Yeshuah spoke in my mind then, and he said one Word: 'Galilee.'
That whole night was bright as day, and many of the 'Multitude' fell into the lava.
I can gather witnesses to testify they too saw many unfamiliar faces in these arisen
crowds.
Only one of the Jerusalem temples survived, while all the others were destroyed.
Because of these events on this day, and because of my terror that I have brought
about this ruin to Rome, I am writing this all down and sending it to Your Esteemed
Imperial Highness, and enclosing with it the court-report kept by Nicodemus, to
warn you of this all, my Emperor, my God."

:: EPSITLE II : PILATE TO HEROD ::
: PREAMBLE :
To Herod Antipas I, Tetrarch over Galilee and Perea,
from Pontius Pilate, prelate over Judea:
Peace Be With You,
Illuminate a Gnosis on this: on that day when you had Yeshuah brought before me, I
took mercy on myself and dissassociated my innocence by washing my hands of
him.
However, I have learned from Longinus, his executioner, and from the 12 Roman
conscripts I personally sent to guard his tomb, that he was resurrected from the
dead. I personally confirmed what those 12 and Nicodemus told me: that he was
alive and well, preaching his one Word message in Galilee, adding only the
doctrine of his resurrection as a sign that the time of his kingdom is now.
Look, Herod, how the whole host of the heavens and the whole kingdom of Israel are
now bursting with joy! Behold how even now my wife Procla is awakening to a new
understanding of her previous nightmares, which had set on when she'd read your
grand-niece, Salome's letter to me, begging me to surrender Yeshuah to the fate of
his nation, on account of her disgust in him.

: PROCLA IN GALILEE :

You see, when my wife Procla overheard from Longinus that Yeshuah had
resurrected himself, and from Nicodemus that he was now alive and well, preaching
in Galilee, she took Longinus and the 12 conscripts who had guarded the tomb, and
went to meet the Maschiach of Israel face-to-face, and there she was confronted by
quite a sight, for there was Yeshuah, standing among his followers.
They were transfixed by awe in him but he caught sight of them and called out,
"What's this? Now do you believe me? Procla, did you know that in God's legalcontract with my people's fore-fathers it is stipulated that, 'when I die, all who
had died will live again,' as now you yourself have seen? Now I live again too, even
I whom was crucified and whom suffered the Paschal sacrifice, and whom was taken
to my own tomb. You with ears to hear, hear and believe on God the Father, who is
within us, for I cut the chord binding us all to death, and I parted the infernal way
to the Underworld so that I may return from thence to now."
After Procla had heard enough of this, she and Longinus and the 12 conscripts
returned, and she came to me wailing in lament. Had not she as much as Longinus
been helplessly used against him when the priests condemned him by our Roman
law? I had been laid out across my lectus in my cubiculum in mourning. For
comfort, I wore the seamless coat of Yeshuah and, assembling six contubernium of
auxiliaries along the way, marched into Galilee with Procla and Longinus.

: PILATE IN GALILEE :
All I spoke about along the way to anyone who would listen was how Herod
Antipater II had done wrong by me, had used me like a marionette, tried to make
me a villain, and is framing me for judging ben Padiah, and for punishing ben
Padiah, AHDVNHAY ben Padiah!
When we came toward where he stood, let me tell you, we heard his Word
thundering from all around.
I crossed his path and stood before him, and AHDVNHAY's eyes met mine as he
paused from discussing ha Torah with his followers. My heart grew heavy and my
throat twisted into a knot; my tongue grew dry. I knew it was truly him, the same
man you'd sent before me to be judged for being ha Adonai of the Entirety Created.
98 knees all buckled as one and my 48 auxilliars behind Longinus collapsed, but I
spoke up. "I have done evil, AHDVNHAY ha Maschiach. I sat in the Mercy seat over
the very one whose Victory is in Righteousness. Now I am a Gnostic, aware that you
are AHDVNHAY, and ha Maschiach, but in that moment I saw only your mortal
garment and my eyes remained unilluminated of your inner essence. I believe you
know better than I how I have sinned against you, not by own will, but because
someone else planted the idea in my mind. Take Mercy upon Me, AHDVNHAY of all
Israel!"
Proclus, in anguish, wailed her lament, complaining "Adonai over all up above and
Adonai under all down below, Adonai of all Israel, for this blasphemous crime,
done by the will of that wicked priest, let not my loving husband be remembered
by the Nous of the wicked priest's 'son.' Let him be remembered by you always as
you both stand now: AHDVNHAY, memoriam gloriam!"
Then Elohim came right up close to us, and I saw on him there were still the
wounds of his crucifixion. Yeshuah's Word emanated thunder:

"That which all the Padiah Patriarchs throughout history have hoped to QBLH, but
could never Apocalypse, during your life occured: Adonai Trismegestus; the Son of
Humanity; Son of the Most High: is forever; arose from death; is en-raptured by His
Creation; and all Israel."
So mote it be forever and ever, Amen.

:: EPISTLE III : PILATE TO CAESAR ::
to Augustus Tiberius, Caesar of Rome,
from Pontius Pilate, prelate of Judea:
Regarding Yeshuah ha Maschiach whom I introduced in my last letter: although I
was unwilling to see it begin, and remain apprehensive lest this epidemic spread,
the people of Judea are beginning to reap their just deserts, and they are terribly
bitter. In just truth, no aeon has ever had nor will ever again see such a man as
Yeshuah.
Claiming to speak on behalf of all the nation, one church's high priest and
paternal-elder conspired to afix to a Roman cross this bastion of Righteousness, in
spite of their own prophets' (their equivalent to our sibyls) advice against it; and
when he was so afixed, terrifying sights of ruin illuminated the whole nation and,
we thought, surely the rest of the world.
His followers have survived and are multiplying. In their humble loyalty to the
empire they continue on the great work of their Master. Yet I lament that, had I
only not feared the people's revolution, fed to me by the lying priests, he might
still be alive today. Because I thought I was honouring Caesar, though I was wrong,
I failed to fight harder to prevent the pouring of Padiah's blood, innocent of it all.
A most blasphemous crime remains as testimony to the evils of men, may they
suffer for it, according to the Law.
5th Kalends, April.

::: ACT III :::
:: PARADOSIS ET MORS PILATI ::
: PROLOGUE :
When, in Rome, PILATEs letters had been receieved, they were summarily narrated before
CAESAR. But the eunichs who pantomimed the dictations all stood there listening, as silent as
stones, during Pilate's description of the recent eclipse and his news of the earth-quake in Judea
to the east. So Caesar Augustus Tiberius weighed in the blind-scales: on the one side: the shortterm relative-success against Judea enjoyed by Antiochus IV, Epiphanes; and on the other side:
the long-term failure of military occupation of Judea from the time of the Optimates Pompey, rival
of populare Gaius Augustus, the first of Rome's Caesarian Dictator Perpetui, founder of the Roman
empire. He wieghed them equally against the current astrology, but it was only out of frustration
and impatience while awaiting the annales maximi of the universities of universality, that
Emperor Augustus Tiberius sent VOLUSIANUS, a messenger, to ascertain the popular sentiment of
Pilate in his province.

I have, but wherefore I know not, taken leave of my entire health and sense of
safety. I have grown cold in blood and bone, but I had heard there was a particular
physician named Jonathan-Alexander, Aristobulus bar Pandera, whom is capable
of healing all sorts of afflictions with only a word, whispered from his lips to the
patient's ear. Your dearest Deuus Caesar and friend humbly implores you, good
Pilate, to send this physician immediately to the capitol of our Empire. Please
accompany him here under the kind auspices of he who bears this sealed scripture,
my good messenger, Voluianus.

: RESPONSIUM PILATI :
Inwardly Pilate was flooded by a coldness like stone, for he suddenly realised that the inevitable
was now immanent, his crime was clear: he had killed Yeshuah in envy. However, outwardly Pilate
answered the messenger thus:
PILATE:
Unforunately, the man our deuus imperator has sent for I was recently forced to have executed. He
was brought before me as a terrorist and had accumulated a multitude of followers. It was most
ill-fated. I took counsel from the elders of the local people, and upon their advice I had him
crucified.

: ANAPHORA PILATI :
As Caesar's personal messenger, Voluianus, walked along the wall dividing the upper-southern
regnal and political section of the city from the liturgical scribal class neighborhoods to the
lower-north he noticed the Pool of Hezekiah and, descending from the Hippicus citadel parapets
via the Jaffa Gate, Voluianus made his way there. Next to the pool sat VERONICA, whom had
testified to Pilate and confessed Yeshuah had healed her menstrual aeneomia. Voluianus
approached Veronica and asked her:
VOLUIANAS:
"Sister, Peace Be Upon You. Please can you tell me: there was a physician who was reported to have
travelled through this way. He reputedly healed all sorts of afflictions with only a word. I want to
hear about why he was killed."
VERONICA: (weeping)
"Elohim, Peace be with you. He whom you seek was AHDVNHAY Elohim, and he was brought before
Pilate, who found him thus condemned by the envy of others, and Pilate had him afixed to the
Roman Cross."
VOLUIANAS: (sighing)
"I could be executed for this. I will be forced to report to my master I have failed to bring to his
side the one physician who might have been able to cure him."
VERONICA:
"Elohim, when my master used to go throughout the countryside preaching, and he left me all by
myself to my chagrin, I hoped to take comfort in a physiognomy of him. Elohim, I was at this spot
on the way to have his likeness portrayed as a portrait, when I happened across his path while he
carried his cross to Calvary. He knealt with me devoutly, and asked where I was going, and I told
him. He took the niqab from before my own face, and pressed it against his own. As you can see it
rendered a perfect likeness."

Veronica then unveiled her veil, emblasoned with the bloody imprint of Yeshuah's face, impressed

onto it seemingly as though by being scorched into the fabric. Voluianas collapsed.
VERONICA:
"If your master were to gaze on this, he will absorb from it as much comfort as I do."
VOLUIANAS:
"My master is Augustus Tiberius Caesar, deuus imperator perpetua over all Rome. I am authorised
to speak on his behalf here. I demand to know how much I can pay you for this miraculous
shroud?"
VERONICA:
"Nothing more than your hassidic heart could suffice. Since you have given me that, I will accept
your invitation to travel to Rome with you, on the condition I may be promised by Caesar your
protection until I return to this spot next. In return I will show my niqab to your master."

So Volusianus returned to Rome with Veronica and informed him:
VOLUIANAS: (to Tiberius Caesar)
"My liege, Yeshuah, whom I was sent to find, was murdered by fate, executed by prelate Pilate,
and by the envy of others he was fixated to the Roman Cross."

: THE SEAMLESS COAT :
So, by half a cohors equitata, only three centuries, Judean prelate Pontius Pilate was siezed in
Jerusalem and escorted to Rome on command of Tiberius Caesar. When Pilate had entered the gates
of Rome, he was immediately brought to the forum Caesaris, to the shrine of Venus Genitrix built
to commemorate Julian calendar reform, to the very feet of the statue of Gaiusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s horse. He was then
told to wait. In a moment, along came Augustus Tiberius Casesar of Rome, followed by the court of
clerks. Within a second moment, the entire senate assembled in the wide promenade, and, as the
cohors tumultuariam of cohortes urbanae and the cohors togata came in their wake from the
intersection of Vicus Tuscus and Cloaca Maxima and the Temple of Castor and Pollux at the foot of
the Capitoline Hill, the whole force of Rome was all focused immediately on prelate Pontius Pilate.
But prelate Pontius Pilate was wearing the seamless white-coat of Yeshuah, and so as soon as
Emperor Tiberius laid eyes on Pilate, he became transfixed in awe of him, and though Pilate rose
to honor Caesar, Tiberius chose not to acknowlegde Pilate at all and walked past him, as a lion
would casually walk past a lost lamb. As soon as Tiberius was out-of-ear-shot of the confused
prelate, he chastised himself before the court of clerks, who duly noted Caesar whispering under
his breath an invocation to Mars. Then, the impossible happened and the course of deuus-solis
reversed alike the retrograde course of Mars; mighty Caesar turned around. He walked back over
to Pilate, who again stood up and reached out with the grip of a Legionaire to shake the hand of his
emperor. But this time Tiberius turned away again. He re-approached the puzzled assembly of
courtesan-scribes, whose pens and pads were sagging; but who then duly noted Caesar swearing a
curse against Pilate to Jupiter. A third time Caesar Tiberius approached Pontius Pilate, who, for a
third time, rose to shake the hand of his emperor. This time Tiberius walked right up to Pilate
and looked into his eye. Pilate saw his emperor's eyes twisted into a snarling fist of angst, as
though it were his position alone that kept Tiberius from slitting Pilate's throat right there on the
spot. Everyone there was whispering or gasping at it, how Caesar fell impotent before Pilate.
But just then, Veronica was walking past with Volusianus for Caesar's next appointment, to
witness the miraculous healing power of her bloody veil. The couple had just come from their
nuptuals, and were preceded by a modest crowd casting before them the petals of roses, narcissi,
oleanders, violets, crocus, narcissus, lily, gladioli, iris, poppy, amaranth and wildflowers in
general.

VOLUIANAS:
"My liege, may I present Veronica, whom is your loyal servant from the eastern province, whose
highest wish was to show you herself this likeness of that physician whom you sent me to procure.
I believe, sir, you should see this as it might do you some good."

Veronica, Volusianus and Tiberius couselled together, in a triumverate, out of ear-shot, for only a
moment. Eventually, Tiberius looked up at Pilate, and then gestured for Veronica and her
newlywed groom, Volusianus, to exit the promenade. He next gestured for two legionairies to rip
the seamless coat off Pilate, and then, as Tiberius approached Pilate, the emperor was calmed
slightly, such that his logical faculties returned to him, and his furious anger settled into
malicious suspicion. While the legionairies dressed down and deloused prelate Pontius Pilate in
the presence of his emperor and ultimate idol, the court of clerks duly noted that:
SCRIBAL COLOPHON:
"Veronica, wife of Tiberius Caesar's envoy to the eastern-province, Volusianus,
reported to his imperial majesty the seamless coat of prelate Pontius Pilate of
Judea in the eastern-province, had originally belonged to the Yeshuah who was to
be Caesar's subject at both Pilate and Veronica's independent hearings today."

: CAESAR'S INTERROGATION OF PONTIUS PILATE, DAY 1 :
CAESAR:
"Pilate, you pig-runt. Why have you chosen the lesser portion of valour? Were you blind to what
all the rest of us saw? Because your personal fortunes have favoured an unjust choice, the entirity
of reality is now closer to the brink of the Abyss."
PILATE:
"Please my omnipotent emperor, it is not within me to have known! It was their so-called
'Multitude:' their Tri-umverate's third, public post. It had been usurped by those loyal to a
certain priest and his eldest son."
CAESAR:
"Who were they?"
PILATE:
"Later I learned, they were Herod Agrippa I posing as Caiphas and prince Agrippa II posing as
Annas. And with them all of their national comrades."
CAESAR:
"Why did you first listen to, and next choose to obey, their treason?"
PILATE:
"The indegenous inhabitants of the region are more often prone to sudden violence than not. They
do not value the day-to-day civil empire we take for granted. Above all they value mythology.
Judea is to Rome what Prometheus was like to Jupiter. They have the myth there of a fallen angel
who was rebellious against their God. In their own mythology, the whole nation in its origin has
chosen to be accursed throughout all time. Such is the star over Jerusalem. If you do not subdue
them, our entire empire will break into two! Unless you force them to, they will never bow to you,
my omnipotent emperor, and instead there will be a revolution to overturn all Rome! Blame the
guilty, I beg of you!"
CAESAR:
"When they brought him before you, you should have brought him before me. You should not have

cooperated with his political enemies and hung this national miracle-healer from your province
on a cross representing Rome. Miracles always prove genuine when their motive is moral. You saw
the miracles and you saw the man, and you duly noted it all to me. By your own report, it is
manifest clearly that Yeshuah ben Padiah was ha Maschiach, the last king of Israel."

But even as Caesar Tiberius was saying this a bolt of lightning tore across the clear blue sky.
There was a pause, and then the ground shook and there was a clap of thunder that followed the
flash of lightning that had shot across the sky. Then there was a second pause, and the earth began
to quake more violently than before, and the concrete columns and marble statues of the forum all
quivered and swayed about on their iron rod supports, although it was reported the next morning
many of them were found to have completely disintegrated, leaving only their metal skeletons
standing above a mound of debris and a mysteriously glowing, powdery dust. When the quake had
happened everyone in Rome had fled to their own house except the Senate around him, who sought
refuge in Caesar, who stood next to Pontius Pilate at the eye of the storm, looking up in wonder at
it all through the occulum of the domed colluseum of the forum Caesarium's front promenade.

: DAY 2 :
Pilate remained in protective custody that night as a guest of Caesar's in civil Rome. The next
morning, Caesar awoke and immediately summoned all who were present during the events of the
prior afternoon to re-assemble in their exact positions as on the preceding day, and gather
together at starting positions around the forum Caesaris. All security forces, called the cryers
dictating Cesar's proclommation, shall be centered around the statue of Venus Genitrix in the
promenade in front of the forum. And so all Rome assembled surrounding the trial of Pontius
Pilate, prelate of Judea, by Tiberius Caesar, deuus imperator perpetuus of Rome. Many were
astonished at the sight of the debris and the mysterious dust, which hovered over the whole
proceeding like an illuminating gloom. But the civil Romans continued their daily business, and
not even one Roman out of ear-shot from the events cared to follow what was going on around them.
But Ceasar, who understood the full meaning of all these facts, turned the full weight of his
attention upon prelate Pilate, as the two men stood in the same spots as the day before, when the
earth shook in awe at the name of Yeshuah ben Padiah.
CAESAR:
"Quid Est Veritas, pig-runt? I believe you've brought all this upon this. Swear on my safety, who
is this Yeshuah whose name has just toppled every standing statue of our Gods in all Rome?"
PILATE:
"I stand by what I said to you on the record I had sent before me. I swear by your safety I am only
one who was a witness to he whom you now know by his righteous justice that was equally
persuaded by this illuminating gloom of his, assuredly a sight greater than the presence of any of
our own mythological pantheon alone."
CAESAR:
"So then why, if you knew this man, did you have him flagellated and agree to have him killed by
being crucified on a Roman cross, unless you yourself want to be my own assassin?"
PILATE:
"Because of the cruelity of their revolutionary essence against the One Law of his own atheistic
nation, I had to have him flagellated, and I did agree to have him afixed to a Roman cross."
CAESAR: (enraged)
"I want this message, written now by every scribe of Rome, to be dispatched immediately to every
corner and quadrant of this, my empire:

"from Emperor Augustus Tiberius Caesar of Rome:
to Lucius Vitellius, hero over Artabanus of Parthia and Procurator of Syria:
"Today I found out that, because the Hebrews of Jerusalem and its neighboring
lands in Judea broke their own laws and coerced their governor, Pontius Pilate, to
afix, in effigy of their own God, a man named Yeshuah ben Padiah to a Roman cross,
there was an earth-quake in that city during the recent eclipse that now also
threatens to spread throughout the whole Roman empire."
CAESAR: (to messengers)
"Let Lucius hear this dictation via the daily Legions' news-briefings tomorrow morning, so that he
knows it has been heard by all Rome. Let him know by this that, by letter of our Legions' law, as if
Yeshuah had been Caesar and this an assassination of I, myself, he must therefore dissolve their
presently indigenous inhabitants from their native region by selling them as slaves to
foreigners."
CAESAR: (privily, to ALBIUS, the nearest Praetorian guard)
"You, yourself are to assassinate Pilate. Just as if Yeshuah were me, so must he die for having
killed Yeshuah. I will not tell him it will be you, so that you may surprise him by it when it
seems most apt."
CAESAR: (to Albius, in ear-shot of Pilate)
"Guards, escort prelate Pilate back to his quarters as a guest in protective custody of Tiberius
Caesar of Rome. I will continue to consult with the Senate, Courts and the universities of
universality for the remainder of this case."

: THE SUICIDE OF PONTIUS PILATE :
After 3 days more residence in Rome as Caesar's guest in protective custody, Pontius Pilate
realised he must have been sentenced to assassination. So, sleepless at a late hour of night, Pilate
returned to the wide promenade of the forum Caesari, beneath its high dome, and sat beneath its
occulus at the foot of the statue of Venus Genitrix, looking up at the stars with his wife, Procla.
PILATE:
"Leave me for a moment while I make a sacrifice for our salvation. If no one approaches me, we may
leave Rome tonight, but if someone does, know by their behaviour how our fate will be sealed."

Prcola exited to the shadows beside a column surrounding the wide promenade.
PILATE: (knealing)
"AHDVNHAY, please do not wiegh me in the same blind-scale as the fakirs who only pretend to be
hassids. Have a-Gnosis I never touched you myself, just that you were unjustly brought before me
by such anarchist atheists who intended to incite a terrorist revolution. Have a-Gnosis my crime
lay in my chosen blindness. Please do not let me be killed for killing you as if you were Caesar.
Please, AHDVNHAY, remember me as I wrote to Herod you would have had we met again in Galilee
as I believed you had promised. Bene deuus, AHDVNHAY, remember me as I had written would
have Procla had you remember us, and for the sake of she who is standing now in the shadows, I
beg you, do not let them kill me for killing you as if you were Caesar. Remember her nightmare;
she had dreamed of your crucifixion. Please, my bene deuus, Yeshuah ben Padiah AHDVNHAY, do
not let us be punished, but save us from death, as you yourself eluded the grave, and do not let us
be killed for killing you as if you were Caesar!"

At this, Pilate drew his own Legionairi dagger, and held it upward with the tip of the blade
pressed to the pulsing arteries of his own throat. Then, a voice boomed forth from the acoustics of

the domed roof of the promenade.
ALBIUS:
"From now on until the last man, everyone will realise your innocence, because you saw me do
what was only dreamed of by my own star's fortune-tellers. As you wrote then, now you will truly
come to see me in Galilee, and sit at my right hand as I weigh in the blind-scales to the last one aGnostic of Just Righteousness or a-Theist of anarchy."

At this, Pilate plunged the dagger into his throat, and as Albius and Procla both rushed up, his
body collapsed out from under him. Albius, reaching him first, managed to catch him only under
his chin as he fell, such that he was left holding only Pilate's head. Procla, upon seeing this and
being so overcome by fear her heart seized up, managed to collapse in such a way that she fell
upon Pilate's dagger herself, and so also "gave up the ghost." Albius then blew a whistle to
summon a legionaire and, conscripting some citizens to testify as witnesses to such, read to them
a note Tiberius gave him to be read to Pilate:

: EPISTLE VI :
"I, Pontius Pilate, prelate of Judea, do hereby swear on the life of Augustus
Tiberius Caesar that it is by my own hand that I and my wife Procla have died, and
our last wish is that our bodied be buried together. Let it be known that, by the
word of Caesar, death's hand reaps every head of wheat, not least so that of his own
field."

: THE BURIAL OF PONTIUS PILATE :
Because of the stipulation made they be buried together, the bodies of Pontius and Procla Pilate
were both chained to a massive concrete pillar that had fallen during the recent tremor and were
thus cast into the river Tiber along with the rest of the debris. However the dust that had blown
out over the river by then made the bodies pulpy like chalk, and the amount of debris piled
already piled under it kept the bodies above water-level during low-tides; and the crows, drawn
by the smell of the moulding carrion spewn carcasses, fed on them, and, as it rained the following
day, which became a light storm of hail, when the next anyone saw them, the bodies of the Pilati
were so desicated it was terrifying to children. So the bodies were removed to Vienne, in Gaul, and
suffered the same burial method upon the river Rhone. But the crows returned, and rain was
followed by hail there too, and after two days the bodies were so further desicated that it
frightened the children. So the corpses were removed from the rocks they'd been chained to but,
being so utterly desicated by this point, were jointly put into a single urn. This urn was then sent
to Lucerne and entombed atop a high mountain. But crows, rain and hail followed there for such a
long time that they eventually removed the bodies from there and took them in the urn to a lake on
Vettore Peak in the Sibillini Mounts and threw the urn into the water. It sank, and so no rain and
hail persist there, however the place remains to this day troubled by crows.

Relativist Ethics

including sections from the FSOM, the POD, past posts made by the author on the IOBB, and many new pesherim, this work is a great primer for the gut-issues of philosophy such as the nature of Good and Evil and man's duty and place in the cosmos. Gravitas. Read with care.